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
- (c) 27 — Each of the 3 digits can be chosen independently for each of the 3 positions, so multiply: 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 9 comes from multiplying only two of the three positions, 3 × 3, and forgetting the third. 6 comes from working out 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, which counts codes where digits do not repeat, but the question allows repeated digits. 3 comes from considering only one digit position.
- (c) 36 — Method: set the outcomes out in a grid with one die along the top and the other down the side, so that every cell of the grid is one outcome, and count the cells. Working: the red die can land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 columns, and the blue die can also land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 rows; the number of cells is 6 × 6 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 comes from adding 6 and 6 instead of multiplying them; 6 comes from counting the outcomes of a single die and forgetting that the second die also has to land; 21 comes from treating the two dice as indistinguishable, so that a red 2 with a blue 3 and a red 3 with a blue 2 are counted as one outcome.
- (d) £143 — From 09:15 to 12:45 is 3 hours 30 minutes, which is 3.5 hours. The charge for the time is 3.5 × £28 = £98, and the call-out fee is added on once: £98 + £45 = £143. £98 leaves out the call-out fee altogether, £129 charges for 3 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and £255.50 adds the fee to the hourly rate before multiplying, which charges the £45 for every hour.
- (b) £8 — Rounding to 1 significant figure: £1.85 rounds to £2, and 3.6 kg rounds to 4 kg. The estimate is £2 × 4 = £8. A candidate who used the unrounded values instead of estimating worked out 1.85 × 3.6 = £6.66. A candidate who rounded only the mass and used the exact price worked out 1.85 × 4 = £7.40. A candidate who rounded the price to the nearest 10p instead of 1 significant figure worked out 1.9 × 4 = £7.60.
- (d) x⁽¹⁄²⁾ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided, and fractional indices are subtracted like any other fractions. Working: 3/4 − 1/4 = 2/4, which simplifies to 1/2, so the result is x⁽¹⁄²⁾. Answer: x⁽¹⁄²⁾. The distractors: x comes from adding the indices, 3/4 + 1/4 = 1, as though the powers were being multiplied; x³ comes from dividing the indices, so that 3/4 divided by 1/4 gives 3; x⁽³⁄¹⁶⁾ comes from multiplying the indices, 3/4 × 1/4.
- (d) £70 — Method: the discount is a percentage of the original price only, so work it out, subtract it, and add the fixed delivery charge afterwards. Working: 25% of £80 is £80 ÷ 4 = £20, so the discounted price is £80 − £20 = £60, and the total is £60 + £10 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £60 comes from working out the discounted price and stopping there, leaving the delivery charge out of the total; £65 comes from taking £25 off the price instead of 25% of it, giving £80 − £25 = £55 and then £55 + £10 = £65; £67.50 comes from adding the delivery charge before the discount and reducing the whole amount, giving 75% of £90 = £67.50.
- (b) 90 km/h — To convert metres per second to kilometres per hour, multiply by 3.6 (there are 3600 seconds in an hour and 1000 metres in a kilometre, and 3600 ÷ 1000 = 3.6): 25 × 3.6 = 90 km/h. Dividing by 3.6 instead of multiplying gives 25 ÷ 3.6 = 6.9 km/h (to 1 d.p.). Multiplying by 60 instead of 3.6, confusing the conversion from seconds to minutes with the conversion to hours, gives 25 × 60 = 1500 km/h. Multiplying by 3600 to convert seconds to hours but forgetting to convert metres to kilometres gives 25 × 3600 = 90000, which is a speed in metres per hour, not kilometres per hour.
- (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.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
- (a) 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45 — Method: a length rounded to 1 decimal place lies within half of 0.1 cm, that is 0.05 cm, of the value written down. The lower limit is included because it rounds up to that value, and the upper limit is excluded because it rounds up to the next value instead. Working: 8.4 − 0.05 = 8.35 and 8.4 + 0.05 = 8.45, so a length of 8.35 cm still rounds to 8.4 cm while a length of 8.45 cm rounds to 8.5 cm. Answer: 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45. The distractors: 8.3 ≤ L < 8.5 goes a whole 0.1 cm either side instead of half of it; 8.35 < L ≤ 8.45 has the two limits the wrong way round, excluding the length that does round to 8.4 cm and including the one that does not; 8.4 ≤ L < 8.5 is the interval for a length truncated to 1 decimal place, not one rounded to it.
- (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) the nearest whole number — The error intervals are 23.5 ≤ p < 24.5 and 5.5 ≤ q < 6.5. The minimum of p ÷ q is 23.5 ÷ 6.5 ≈ 3.615, and the maximum is 24.5 ÷ 5.5 ≈ 4.455. Both of these round to 4 at the nearest whole number, so the answer is guaranteed correct to the nearest whole number — but not to the nearest 0.1, since 3.615 rounds to 3.6 while 4.455 rounds to 4.5, which do not agree. Claiming the nearest 0.1 assumes every figure a calculator shows is trustworthy, without checking whether the bounds actually agree that far. Claiming only the nearest 10 badly understates how much can be guaranteed here, since both bounds already round to 4, not merely to 0. Saying no degree of accuracy can be guaranteed gives up before checking whether the bounds agree at any level at all.
- (a) 5√2 — Simplify each surd first: √8 = √4 × √2 = 2√2, and √18 = √9 × √2 = 3√2. Both terms are now multiples of √2, so they are like terms: 2√2 + 3√2 = 5√2. Adding the numbers under the two roots first, 8 + 18 = 26, and writing √26 treats unlike surds as if they combine under one root — they only combine once they share the same radicand, which is not how addition of surds works. Writing 9√2 for √18 instead of 3√2 (forgetting to root the 9) and then adding gives 2√2 + 9√2 = 11√2. Writing 4√2 for √8 instead of 2√2 (forgetting to root the 4) and adding gives 4√2 + 3√2 = 7√2.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.