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) 8 — Method: write $16^{3/4}$ as $(\sqrt[4]{16})^3$ — the denominator of the index gives the root, the numerator gives the power. Working: $\sqrt[4]{16} = 2$, so $16^{3/4} = 2^3 = 8$. Answer: 8. A candidate who multiplies 16 by 3/4 is treating the index as an ordinary factor and gets 12 — a fractional index is not a multiplier. A candidate who takes the square root instead of the fourth root and then cubes it works out $(\sqrt{16})^3 = 4^3$ and gets 64; the denominator 4 names a fourth root, not a square root. A candidate who takes the fourth root of 16 correctly but stops there, without cubing it, gets 2.
- (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) 45 — Method: count the ordered pairings with the product rule and then correct for the fact that a game between two players is the same game whichever player it is counted from. Working: each of the 10 players meets 9 opponents, so 10 × 9 = 90 pairings are counted; every game has been counted twice, once from each player's side, so the number of games is 90 ÷ 2 = 45. Answer: 45. The distractors: 90 comes from stopping at 10 × 9 and never halving, so that each game is counted once for each of its two players; 55 comes from adding 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 instead of 9 + 8 + ... + 1, which counts one extra round of games; 20 comes from multiplying the 10 players by the 2 players in each game rather than pairing the players with one another.
- (a) 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78% — Method: convert every value to a decimal, then order the decimals from largest to smallest. Working: 7/8 = 0.875, 17/20 = 0.85, 0.8 = 0.8, 78% = 0.78. Ordering from largest to smallest gives 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. Answer: 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. '78%, 0.8, 17/20, 7/8' comes from ordering the converted decimals from smallest to largest instead of largest to smallest. '17/20, 7/8, 0.8, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as larger than 7/8, for example treating 17/20 as 0.87 instead of 0.85, swapping the top two. '7/8, 0.8, 17/20, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as equal to 0.8, swapping the middle two.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
- (d) 1.6 × 10⁵ — 5.6 ÷ 3.5 = 1.6, and 7 − 2 = 5, so the average turnover per shop is 1.6 × 10⁵ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 × 2 = 14, so 1.6 × 10¹⁴. Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 + 2 = 9, so 1.6 × 10⁹. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 5.6 − 3.5 = 2.1, so 2.1 × 10⁵.
- (c) Exactly 1: the subtraction has no rounding at any step. — 10x − x removes the recurring part completely, because the digits after the decimal point in 10x and in x are identical from the tenths place onward, so they cancel exactly: 9.999... − 0.999... = 9.000... = 9. Nothing was rounded to reach 9x = 9, so x = 1 is an exact equality, not an approximation, and the statement that the value is exactly 1, with no rounding at any step, is the correct one. Calling it only approximately 1, on the ground that a recurring decimal can never reach a whole number, misunderstands what the subtraction has just shown: the recurring tail cancels completely, leaving no gap to approximate away. Claiming the method only works because the recurring digit is 9 is also wrong — the same subtraction cancels the recurring part for any repeating digit, not just 9; it is the choice of multiplier (10, matching the one-digit repeat) that makes the cancellation exact, not the digit itself. Saying 10x minus x gives 8.999... rather than 9 misreads the subtraction: 9.999... − 0.999... has no digit to borrow from, since every decimal digit in the two numbers matches, so the result is exactly 9, not 8.999... .
- (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 2.
- (a) 18 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then square each rounded number and add the results. Working: 2.9 rounds to 3 and 3.1 rounds to 3, so the estimate is 3² + 3² = 9 + 9. Answer: 18. The distractors: 36 comes from adding before squaring, working out (3 + 3)² instead of 3² + 3²; 12 comes from doubling each rounded number instead of squaring it, adding 6 and 6; 6 comes from adding the two rounded numbers and forgetting to square them at all.
- (c) 4.6 — Since 100 lies between 64 and 125, ∛100 lies between 4 and 5. Narrow it down: 4.6³ = 97.336, which is less than 100, so ∛100 is greater than 4.6. To decide how it rounds to 1 decimal place, test the midpoint: 4.65³ = 100.544, which is more than 100, so ∛100 is less than 4.65 and therefore rounds down to 4.6. Simply taking the midpoint of 4 and 5 without testing any cube gives 4.5. Going up to the next tenth because 4.6³ fell short of 100, without checking that 4.65³ already overshoots, gives 4.7. Comparing 100 with the two given cubes, 64 and 125, noticing that 100 is nearer to 125, and rounding straight to the nearest whole number gives 5.0 — but that comparison is between the cubes, not between the cube roots, and cubing stretches the gaps unevenly, so it says nothing about which value the cube root rounds to.
- (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.
- (d) 6 × 10⁷ — 3 × 2 = 6, and 2 + 5 = 7, so (3 × 10²) × (2 × 10⁵) = 6 × 10⁷. Multiplying the exponents instead of adding them gives 2 × 5 = 10, so 6 × 10¹⁰. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 3 + 2 = 5, so 5 × 10⁷. Subtracting the exponents instead of adding them gives 5 − 2 = 3, so 6 × 10³.
- (b) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (d) 30 kg — Round 0.485 kg to 1 significant figure: 0.5 kg. Multiply by the 60 cakes: 0.5 × 60 = 30 kg. A candidate who rounded to 2 significant figures instead of 1 used 0.49 kg, giving 0.49 × 60 = 29.4 kg. A candidate who used the unrounded amount instead of the estimate worked out 0.485 × 60 = 29.1 kg. A candidate who rounded 0.485 down to 0.4 kg instead of up to 0.5 kg worked out 0.4 × 60 = 24 kg.
- (b) 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7 — Method: the error interval reaches half the rounding unit either side of the recorded value. Working: half of 0.2 is 0.1, so the interval runs from 18.6 − 0.1 to 18.6 + 0.1. Answer: 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7. (18.4 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from using the full rounding unit, 0.2, either side instead of half of it. 18.5 ≤ T ≤ 18.7 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 18.6 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from treating the recorded value as the start of the interval and adding the whole rounding unit, 0.2, above it.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.