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) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
- (b) 93.9975 — Each measurement was rounded to 1 decimal place, so the error is half of 0.1: length is 12.35 ≤ L < 12.45, and width is 7.45 ≤ W < 7.55. The upper bound for the area comes from multiplying the upper bounds of both dimensions: 12.45 × 7.55 = 93.9975 m². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 12.35 × 7.45 = 92.0075 m², gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two given rounded values directly, 12.4 × 7.5 = 93, forgets that a rounded measurement is not exact and needs its own error interval. Bounding only the length and leaving the width at its given value, 12.45 × 7.5 = 93.375, misses that the width also has an upper bound of its own.
- (a) 4 + √6 — Multiply top and bottom by the conjugate, 4 + √6. The denominator becomes (4 − √6)(4 + √6) = 4² − (√6)² = 16 − 6 = 10. The numerator becomes 10 × (4 + √6) = 40 + 10√6. So the fraction is (40 + 10√6)/10 = 4 + √6, since both terms in the numerator divide by 10. Distributing the conjugate to only the whole-number term of the numerator, and forgetting the surd term entirely, leaves just 4. Rationalising by multiplying the numerator by the conjugate but leaving the ORIGINAL denominator's sign unchanged instead of squaring it lands on 4 − √6, with the surd's sign never actually flipping to positive. Dividing only the whole-number part of the numerator by 10 and forgetting to divide the surd term too leaves 4 + 10√6.
- (c) 6 — 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Ignoring the brackets and working left to right gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18, then 18 × 3 = 54. Multiplying by the bracket instead of dividing by it gives 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 × 6 = 216. Dividing by only the 2 inside the bracket, and ignoring the × 3, gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 25 — Reverse the operations in reverse order: undo the subtraction by adding 6, then undo the division by multiplying by 5. −1 + 6 = 5, so the number divided by 5 equals 5, and 5 × 5 = 25 — checking, 25 ÷ 5 − 6 = 5 − 6 = −1. A candidate who subtracted 6 again instead of adding worked out −1 − 6 = −7, then −7 × 5 = −35. A candidate who multiplied by 5 before undoing the subtraction, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out −1 × 5 = −5, then −5 + 6 = 1. A candidate who multiplied by 5 but forgot to undo the subtraction at all worked out −1 × 5 = −5 and stopped there.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
- (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) 0 — Method: BIDMAS works through the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: 5² = 25, then 4 × 25 = 100, and finally 100 − 100 = 0. Answer: 0. The distractors: 2400 comes from working from left to right and subtracting first, giving (100 − 4) × 25 = 96 × 25 = 2400; −300 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (4 × 5)² = 20² = 400 and then 100 − 400 = −300; 60 comes from reading 5² as 5 × 2 = 10, so that 4 × 10 = 40 and 100 − 40 = 60.
- (d) 2⁷ — When multiplying powers of the same base, the indices add: 3 + 4 = 7, so 2³ × 2⁴ = 2⁷. Multiplying the indices instead of adding them gives 3 × 4 = 12, so 2¹². Subtracting the indices instead of adding them gives 4 − 3 = 1, so 2¹. Multiplying the bases together as well as adding the indices gives 2 × 2 = 4, so 4⁷.
- (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
- (c) £196.35 — Method: convert both prices to pounds, multiply each by its quantity, then add the two totals. Working: 340 rolls at £0.24 each = £81.60; 85 cakes at £1.35 each = £114.75; £81.60 + £114.75 = £196.35. Answer: £196.35. £81.60 comes from working out the cost of the rolls only and forgetting to add the cost of the cakes. £114.75 comes from working out the cost of the cakes only and forgetting to add the cost of the rolls. £122.91 comes from converting 24p to £0.024 instead of £0.24, a place value error of a factor of 10 in the price of the rolls, before adding the correctly worked out cost of the cakes.
- (a) 120 — There are 6 choices for the first digit. The second digit must be different from the first, leaving 5 choices, and the third digit must differ from both of the first two, leaving 4 choices. By the product rule, the number of codes is 6 × 5 × 4 = 120. Allowing every digit to repeat, ignoring the 'no digit twice' rule entirely, gives 6 × 6 × 6 = 216. Adding the number of choices at each position instead of multiplying them, 6 + 5 + 4, gives 15. Treating the three chosen digits as one unordered set, rather than as digits in a fixed order on the padlock, divides by the 3! = 6 ways of arranging them: 120 ÷ 6 = 20.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.