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) 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.
- (d) 72a⁷ — Method: a power outside brackets applies to every factor inside them, and multiplying two powers of the same letter adds their indices. Working: (3a²)² = 3² × a⁴ = 9a⁴, and (2a)³ = 2³ × a³ = 8a³. Multiplying the two results gives 9 × 8 = 72 for the number and 4 + 3 = 7 for the index of a. Answer: 72a⁷. The distractors: 36a⁷ comes from squaring the 2 in (2a)³ instead of cubing it, giving 4a³ and then 9 × 4; 72a¹² comes from multiplying the indices 4 and 3 when the two terms are multiplied, instead of adding them; 17a⁷ comes from adding the coefficients 9 and 8 rather than multiplying them.
- (a) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (c) 5/11 — Let x = 0.45 recurring, so x = 0.454545... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 45.454545... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part exactly, because it lines up digit for digit: 100x − x = 45.454545... − 0.454545... = 45, so 99x = 45, giving x = 45/99 = 5/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 45/100 = 9/20, which is only 0.45 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 45 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 45/90 = 1/2. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 45 − 1 = 44 instead of 45, gives 44/99 = 4/9.
- (a) 23 — Division undoes multiplication, so the missing number is 391 ÷ 17 = 23. Writing down 17 repeats the number already given instead of solving for the missing one. Subtracting instead of dividing gives 391 − 17 = 374. Multiplying instead of dividing gives 391 × 17 = 6647.
- (a) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
- (c) 3 — Method: the index counts how many times the coefficient has been multiplied by 10, which is the number of places the decimal point moves from the end of the number to just after the first significant digit. Working: 2,000 = 2 × 1,000, and 1,000 = 10 × 10 × 10, which is three tens. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from counting the four digits of 2,000 rather than the three places the decimal point moves; 2 comes from copying the coefficient 2 into the index; −3 comes from making the index negative, which would describe a number smaller than 1 rather than two thousand.
- (d) 0.024 cm — Method: significant figures are counted from the first non-zero digit; the zeros in front of it only fix the place value and are not significant. Working: in 0.02384 the first significant figure is 2 and the second is 3, so the rounding is decided by the next digit, 8. As 8 is 5 or more, the second significant figure goes up from 3 to 4, in the same place value. Answer: 0.024 cm. The distractors: 0.023 cm comes from chopping the 84 off instead of rounding it; 0.02 cm comes from counting the leading zeros as significant figures, so the 2 is taken as the second figure and the rounding stops there; 0.0238 cm is 0.02384 correct to 3 significant figures, one figure too many.
- (a) 8 × 10² — Method: to multiply numbers written in standard form, multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 4 × 2 = 8 for the coefficients, and −3 + 5 = 2 for the indices; 8 already lies between 1 and 10, so no adjustment is needed. Answer: 8 × 10². The distractors: 6 × 10² comes from adding the coefficients, 4 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 8 × 10⁸ comes from ignoring the minus sign and adding 3 + 5; 8 × 10⁻¹⁵ comes from multiplying the indices, −3 × 5, instead of adding them.
- (a) 12 — Method: build the number one place at a time, listing systematically: fix the tens digit, then run through every units digit that is still available. Working: any of the 4 digits can go in the tens place, and once it has been used only 3 digits are left for the units place, so there are 4 × 3 = 12 numbers; listing the numbers that begin with 1 gives 12, 13 and 14, and each of the other three starting digits gives 3 numbers in the same way. Answer: 12. The distractors: 16 comes from working out 4 × 4, which allows a digit to be used twice; 8 comes from multiplying the 4 digits by the 2 places in the number instead of multiplying the choices available at each place; 6 comes from treating a number and its reverse as the same, counting only the unordered pairs of digits.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 37.5 — The error intervals are 45 ≤ c < 55 and 17.5 ≤ d < 18.5. The maximum possible value of a difference comes from the largest possible value being reduced by the smallest amount: use the upper bound of c together with the LOWER bound of d, since subtracting less gives a bigger result: 55 − 17.5 = 37.5. Using the upper bound for both quantities, 55 − 18.5 = 36.5, forgets that subtracting a bigger number gives a smaller answer, not a bigger one. Using the lower bounds for both, 45 − 17.5 = 27.5, gives the lower bound of the difference instead of the upper one. Using the lower bound of c with the upper bound of d, 45 − 18.5 = 26.5, combines the two bounds the wrong way round entirely.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.