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) 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.
- (a) 1/5 — Work out the bracket first: 2 + 3 = 5. The reciprocal of 5 is 1/5. A candidate who forgot to take the reciprocal and just gave the value of the bracket wrote 5. A candidate who took the reciprocal but made a sign error wrote −1/5. A candidate who found the reciprocal of each number separately and added them, treating reciprocal as if it distributes over addition, worked out 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6.
- (b) 12 — Method: round the number of pupils to the nearest 10, divide by the number of passengers each minibus can carry, then round up because a part-full minibus still needs a whole vehicle. Working: 179 rounds to 180 (nearest 10); 180 ÷ 16 = 11.25; 11 minibuses only carry 176 passengers, so a 12th minibus is needed for the rest. Answer: 12. 11 comes from rounding 11.25 to the nearest whole number in the usual way, without checking that the leftover pupils still need transporting. 10 comes from rounding 179 down to 170 instead of to the nearest 10, 180. 180 comes from stopping after rounding the number of pupils, without dividing by the number of passengers each minibus carries at all.
- (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.
- (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
- (a) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (b) 3²⁰ is larger — Method: two powers with different bases and different indices can be compared once they are rewritten with a common index, which is possible whenever the indices share a factor. Working: 30 and 20 have a highest common factor of 10, so 2³⁰ = (2³)¹⁰ = 8¹⁰ and 3²⁰ = (3²)¹⁰ = 9¹⁰. Both are now tenth powers, and since 9 is larger than 8, 9¹⁰ is larger than 8¹⁰. Answer: 3²⁰ is larger. The distractors: 2³⁰ is larger comes from comparing only the indices and choosing the power with the bigger index; They are equal comes from multiplying base by index, 2 × 30 and 3 × 20, and finding 60 each time; They cannot be compared without a calculator comes from assuming that powers this large can only be ranked by evaluating them in full.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 11:20 — Method: find the flight time using time = distance ÷ speed, then add this to the departure time. Working: 2340 ÷ 780 = 3 hours; 08:20 + 3 hours = 11:20. Answer: 11:20. 08:40 comes from dividing speed by distance instead of distance by speed, giving a flight time of 1/3 hour (20 minutes) rather than 3 hours. 11:00 comes from adding the 3-hour flight time to the hour of the departure time only, 8 + 3 = 11, and losing the 20 minutes. 03:00 comes from finding the flight time correctly but giving it as a clock time on its own, forgetting to add it to the departure time.
- (c) (12 + 3π) cm — The perimeter of a quarter-circle is made up of two straight radii plus a quarter of the circumference. The two radii give 2 × 6 = 12 cm, and a quarter of the circumference is (1/4) × 2 × π × 6 = 3π cm, so the total perimeter is (12 + 3π) cm. Giving only the curved part, 3π cm, forgets the two straight edges entirely. Using the full circumference, 2 × π × 6 = 12π, instead of a quarter of it gives (12 + 12π) cm. Including only one radius instead of two gives (6 + 3π) cm.
- (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) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (b) 25 g — Method: substitute the number of years into the model, raise the fraction to that power first, then multiply by the starting mass. Working: with n = 3 the model gives M = 200 × (1/2)³. Since (1/2)³ = 1/8, the mass is 200 ÷ 8 = 25. Answer: 25 g. The distractors: 12.5 g comes from halving four times instead of three, counting the first weighing as a year; 300 g comes from multiplying by 1/2 × 3 = 1.5 instead of raising 1/2 to the power 3; 0.125 g comes from working out (1/2)³ = 0.125 and stopping there, without multiplying by the starting mass.
- (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.