Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the number statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
- (c) 1/x⁶ — Method: raising a power to another power multiplies the two indices, and a negative index means one over the matching positive power. Working: −2 × 3 = −6, so (x⁻²)³ = x⁻⁶, and x⁻⁶ written as a fraction is 1/x⁶. Answer: 1/x⁶. The distractors: x⁶ comes from multiplying the indices correctly but dropping the minus sign; 1/x⁵ comes from adding the sizes of the indices, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; −x⁶ comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign in front of the whole term.
- (b) 3/5 — Method: add all three parts for the total, add together the parts that are not green, then write this over the total. Working: total parts = 4 + 5 + 6 = 15. Not green = 4 + 5 = 9. Fraction = 9/15 = 3/5. Answer: 3/5. 2/5 comes from finding the fraction that IS green (6/15 = 2/5) instead of not green. 4/15 comes from only counting the red baubles as 'not green' and forgetting the gold ones. 9/10 comes from adding only two of the three ratio parts to find the total (4+6=10), missing out the gold part, while still using 9 for the numerator.
- (b) Chloe's estimate — √70 = 8.3666... to 4 decimal places. Comparing each estimate against this: Ben's 8.3 is 0.0666 away; Chloe's 8.4 is only 0.0334 away; Dan's 8.9 is 0.5334 away; Ella's 8.5 is 0.1334 away. Chloe's estimate is closest, because her method tests an actual calculation, 8.5² = 72.25, sees that it overshoots 70, and corrects slightly downward from it, rather than only comparing which perfect square is nearer. Ben's sharing-out is not a bad idea in itself — 70 sits 6 of the way along the 17 from 64 to 81, so 'about a third of the way' from 8 to 9 points at roughly 8.35 — but he then rounds that position down to 8.3, and it is that rounding, not the sharing-out, that leaves him twice as far from √70 as Chloe. Dan's claim that 81 is closer to 70 than 64 is is backwards: 70 − 64 = 6, while 81 − 70 = 11, so 64 is in fact the nearer square, which makes his estimate of 8.9 the furthest from the truth of all four. Ella's plain midpoint of 8 and 9 tests nothing at all: √70 does not sit halfway between 8 and 9, and her 8.5 lands further from √70 than Chloe's checked estimate does.
- (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
- (a) 7.5 × 10⁴ — Standard form is A × 10ⁿ, where A is between 1 and 10 (1 ≤ A < 10) and n is an integer — 7.5 × 10⁴ satisfies all of this. 12 × 10³ fails because 12 is not below 10. 0.5 × 10⁴ fails because 0.5 is not at least 1. 6.2 × 4⁵ fails because standard form always uses a power of 10, not a power of 4.
- (c) 3/11 — Method: let a letter stand for the recurring decimal, multiply by the power of ten that shifts exactly one repeating block past the point, subtract the original equation so that the recurring tail cancels, then solve and cancel. Working: let x = 0.272727...; the repeating block is two digits long, so multiply by 100 to give 100x = 27.272727...; subtracting gives 99x = 27, so x = 27/99; the highest common factor of 27 and 99 is 9, and 27 ÷ 9 = 3 with 99 ÷ 9 = 11. Answer: 3/11. The distractors: 27/100 comes from writing the repeating block over 100 instead of over 99, forgetting that subtracting x leaves 99x rather than 100x; 3/10 comes from rounding the decimal to one place and converting 0.3; 2/9 comes from treating only the 2 as recurring and converting 0.222... instead.
- (a) 300 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 8,900 rounds to 9,000 and 29 rounds to 30; cancelling a zero from each gives 900 ÷ 3. Answer: 300. The distractors: 450 comes from rounding 29 down to 20 instead of to the nearest ten, giving 9,000 ÷ 20; 3,000 comes from rounding 29 to 3 rather than to 30, a place-value slip that divides by a number ten times too small; 307 is the exact quotient rounded to the nearest whole number, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (c) 5 × 10⁶ — Method: standard form is written as A × 10ⁿ, where A is at least 1 and less than 10 and n counts the places the decimal point moves. Working: the digits of 5,000,000 give a coefficient of A = 5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,000,000 until it sits just after the 5, a move of 6 places, so n = 6. Answer: 5 × 10⁶. The distractors: 50 × 10⁵ comes from stopping before the coefficient has been brought into range, and 50 is not less than 10, so it is not standard form; 5 × 10⁷ comes from counting the seven digits of 5,000,000 instead of the six places the decimal point moves; 5 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left, when a negative index belongs to a number smaller than 1.
- (d) 72a⁷ — Method: a power outside brackets applies to every factor inside them, and multiplying two powers of the same letter adds their indices. Working: (3a²)² = 3² × a⁴ = 9a⁴, and (2a)³ = 2³ × a³ = 8a³. Multiplying the two results gives 9 × 8 = 72 for the number and 4 + 3 = 7 for the index of a. Answer: 72a⁷. The distractors: 36a⁷ comes from squaring the 2 in (2a)³ instead of cubing it, giving 4a³ and then 9 × 4; 72a¹² comes from multiplying the indices 4 and 3 when the two terms are multiplied, instead of adding them; 17a⁷ comes from adding the coefficients 9 and 8 rather than multiplying them.
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (b) 25 g — Method: substitute the number of years into the model, raise the fraction to that power first, then multiply by the starting mass. Working: with n = 3 the model gives M = 200 × (1/2)³. Since (1/2)³ = 1/8, the mass is 200 ÷ 8 = 25. Answer: 25 g. The distractors: 12.5 g comes from halving four times instead of three, counting the first weighing as a year; 300 g comes from multiplying by 1/2 × 3 = 1.5 instead of raising 1/2 to the power 3; 0.125 g comes from working out (1/2)³ = 0.125 and stopping there, without multiplying by the starting mass.
- (d) −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3 — Method: convert the fractions 5/4 and −6/5 to decimals so every number is written the same way, then compare all five decimals. Working: 5/4 = 1.25 and −6/5 = −1.2. Comparing −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25 and 1.3 in size gives the order −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25, 1.3. Answer: −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3. −6/5, −1.4, 0, 5/4, 1.3 swaps the two negative numbers, treating −6/5 as more negative than −1.4 even though −1.2 is closer to zero than −1.4. 1.3, 5/4, 0, −6/5, −1.4 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −1.4, −6/5, 0, 1.3, 5/4 swaps 5/4 and 1.3, comparing the numerator 5 directly with 1.3 instead of converting 5/4 to the decimal 1.25 first.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.