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) 2 hours — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round the distance first and then divide by the speed. Working: 95 km rounds to 100 km, and 100 ÷ 50 = 2; the speed is in kilometres per hour, so the answer is a number of hours. Answer: 2 hours. The distractors: 1 hour comes from rounding the distance down to 50 km to match the speed, so that the journey looks like a single hour of driving; 30 minutes comes from dividing the speed by the distance, 50 ÷ 100, instead of the distance by the speed; 1 hour 54 minutes is the exact time, 95 ÷ 50 = 1.9 hours, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
- (d) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
- (b) 9/25 — Method: write the decimal over the matching power of ten, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.36 has two digits after the point, so 0.36 = 36/100; the highest common factor of 36 and 100 is 4, and 36 ÷ 4 = 9 with 100 ÷ 4 = 25; since 9 and 25 share no factor greater than 1, the fraction is fully cancelled. Answer: 9/25. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 9/50 comes from dividing the numerator by 4 but the denominator by only 2; 36/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
- (c) 7/30 — Let x = 0.2333... . Because only the 3 recurs, use two multiples of x that line up the recurring part exactly: 10x = 2.333... and 100x = 23.333... . Subtracting removes the recurring tail completely: 100x − 10x = 23.333... − 2.333... = 21, so 90x = 21, giving x = 21/90 = 7/30. Treating the decimal as if it terminated after two places, writing 0.23 as 23/100, ignores that the 3 carries on forever. Misreading which digits recur — treating 0.2333... as if the block '23' repeated, giving 0.232323... — leads to x = 23/99, which is a different, larger recurring decimal from the one given. A numerator slip in the subtraction, computing 22 instead of 21, gives x = 22/90 = 11/45.
- (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
- (a) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (c) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (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.
- (a) to the nearest centimetre — Method: the error interval of a rounded measurement runs from half a unit below the stated value to half a unit above it, so the width of the interval is one whole unit of the accuracy used. Working: the interval runs from 24.5 to 25.5, a width of 25.5 − 24.5 = 1, so the unit of accuracy is 1 cm; the stated value is the midpoint, 25 cm, and 25 correct to the nearest centimetre is exactly what gives 24.5 ≤ L < 25.5. Answer: to the nearest centimetre. To the nearest 0.5 cm comes from reading the half-unit, 0.5, as the accuracy itself instead of doubling it back to the full unit. To 1 decimal place comes from seeing the bounds written with one decimal place and taking that as the accuracy, but the bounds of a value given to 1 decimal place would be only 0.05 either side. To the nearest 10 cm comes from confusing the size of the value, about 25, with the unit it was rounded to; rounding to the nearest 10 cm would give an interval 5 cm either side of the stated value.
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (d) 36 — Method: the fraction is acting as an operator on the whole class, so one third of the class equals 12; the operation has to be reversed, and the inverse of dividing by 3 is multiplying by 3. Working: 1/3 × (number of pupils) = 12, so the number of pupils = 12 × 3 = 36. Answer: 36 pupils. The distractors: 4 comes from applying the operator instead of reversing it, working out 12 ÷ 3 = 4; 18 comes from reading the 12 girls as two thirds of the class, giving 12 ÷ 2 × 3 = 18; 24 comes from working out the number of boys, the other two thirds, as 2 × 12 = 24 and giving that instead of the size of the class.
- (b) Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm — Method: a recorded measurement is not an exact length; it stands for every length that rounds to it, so the two records agree if one rod can produce both. Working: Ben's record of 14.8 cm to the nearest 0.1 cm means the rod is between 14.75 cm and 14.85 cm, and 14.8 is nearer to 15 than to 14, so a rod of that length is recorded as 15 cm to the nearest centimetre. Both records can therefore come from the same rod. Answer: Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm. The distractors: the claim that 14.8 cm rounds to 15.0 cm to 1 decimal place is false, since 14.8 cm is already written to 1 decimal place and stays 14.8 cm; the claim that it rounds to 14 cm is false, because 14.8 is 0.2 away from 15 and 0.8 away from 14; the claim that the two lengths are not the same treats each record as an exact length, when each is only a rounded record of one rod.
- (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.