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
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (c) 87 litres — Work out how much water is drained: 8 × 6 = 48 litres. Subtract this from the starting amount: 120 − 48 = 72 litres. Then add the 15 litres from the hose: 72 + 15 = 87 litres. Subtracting the 15 litres instead of adding it, as though the hose also removed water, gives 120 − 48 − 15 = 57 litres. Stopping after the drain step, without adding the hose water back in, leaves the working at 72 litres. Adding the rate and the time instead of multiplying them, 8 + 6 = 14 litres drained, and then working from there gives 120 − 14 + 15 = 121 litres. So 87 litres of water is left in the tank.
- (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.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (b) 750,000,000 — Method: multiplying by 10⁸ moves the decimal point eight places to the right, and every empty place is filled with a zero. Working: 10⁸ = 100,000,000, and moving the decimal point in 7.5 eight places to the right gives 7.5 × 100,000,000. Answer: 750,000,000. The distractors: 7,500,000,000 comes from removing the decimal point first to make 75 and then writing eight zeros after it, which carries the digits one place too far; 600 comes from reading 10⁸ as 10 × 8 = 80 and working out 7.5 × 80; 0.000000075 comes from moving the decimal point eight places to the left, as though the index were negative.
- (d) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
- (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
- (d) 24 — Method: the three parts of the deal are chosen independently, so every sandwich can be taken with every snack and every one of those pairs with every drink; the product rule multiplies the number of choices in each part. Working: there are 4 choices of sandwich and each can be taken with any of the 3 snacks, giving 4 × 3 = 12 sandwich-and-snack pairs; each of those pairs can be completed with either of the 2 drinks, so the number of meal deals is 12 × 2 = 24. Answer: 24. The distractors: 9 comes from adding the choices, 4 + 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them, and a candidate who adds writes that total down as the count; 12 comes from multiplying the sandwiches by the snacks and never bringing the drink into the count at all; 27 comes from adding the items on the menu to get 9 and then multiplying that by the 3 parts of the deal, which counts the menu rather than the combinations.
- (a) 330 ml — Correct to the nearest 20 ml means the true volume could be up to 10 ml (half of 20) either side of 340 ml. The smallest possible volume is 340 − 10 = 330 ml. A candidate who subtracted the full 20 ml instead of half of it worked out 340 − 20 = 320 ml. A candidate who added instead of subtracted, finding the largest possible volume instead of the smallest, worked out 340 + 10 = 350 ml. A candidate who halved the interval again by mistake, using 5 ml instead of 10 ml, worked out 340 − 5 = 335 ml.
- (c) 5 × 10⁻³ — Method: in standard form the coefficient must be at least 1 and less than 10, and for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative and counts the places the decimal point moves to the right. Working: the only significant digit is 5, so the coefficient is 5; moving the decimal point in 0.005 three places to the right gives 5, so the index is −3. Answer: 5 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 0.5 × 10⁻² is the same value written the wrong way, because 0.5 is smaller than 1 and so is not an allowed coefficient; 5 × 10⁻² comes from counting the two zeros after the decimal point instead of the three places the point moves; 5 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes a number in the thousands rather than one smaller than 1.
- (c) 3 and 4 — Find the two consecutive fourth powers either side of 200: 3⁴ = 81 and 4⁴ = 256. Since 81 < 200 < 256, ⁴√200 lies between 3 and 4. Answering 14 and 15 comes from taking a square root instead of a fourth root: √200 ≈ 14.14, which does lie between 14 and 15, but that is not the root the question asks for. Answering 5 and 6 comes from taking a cube root instead of a fourth root: ∛200 ≈ 5.85, which lies between 5 and 6. Answering 4 and 5 comes from working 4⁴ as though it were 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 and stopping a factor short, then concluding that 200 is already past 4⁴ and the root must be above 4.
- (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) 2/11 — Let x = 0.18 recurring, so x = 0.181818... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 18.181818... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part, because the digits line up exactly: 100x − x = 18.181818... − 0.181818... = 18, so 99x = 18, giving x = 18/99 = 2/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 18/100 = 9/50, which is only 0.18 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 18 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 18/90 = 1/5. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 18 − 1 = 17 instead of 18, gives 17/99.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
- (d) 3/10 — Total parts = 7 + 3 = 10. Gold beads are 3 of those 10 parts, so the fraction is 3/10. 7/10 comes from finding the fraction of red beads instead of gold beads. 7/3 comes from writing the ratio itself as a fraction, without adding the parts to find the total. 3/7 comes from comparing gold beads with red beads instead of with the total number of beads.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.