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) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
- (a) 17 — Method: work out each power separately, then combine them as the question asks. Working: $2^3 = 8$ and $3^2 = 9$, and 8 + 9 = 17. 72 comes from working out 8 × 9 = 72, multiplying the two powers instead of adding them. 12 comes from misreading the powers as repeated multiplication of the base by the index, 2 × 3 + 3 × 2 = 6 + 6 = 12. −1 comes from working out 8 − 9 = −1, subtracting the powers instead of adding them. Answer: 17.
- (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.
- (d) 3√5 — Split 45 into a perfect square times a factor: 45 = 9 × 5. Take the square root of each part separately: √45 = √9 × √5 = 3√5, since √9 = 3. Writing the perfect-square factor itself (9) as the coefficient instead of its root would give 9√5 — that trap comes from forgetting the last step, rooting 9. Multiplying 3 and 5 together instead of keeping them as coefficient and radicand gives 15, which throws away the surd entirely. Doubling the correct coefficient by mistake gives 6√5.
- (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
- (a) 1/4 — First find the fraction of the people who are children: the pool is 3 + 5 = 8 equal shares and the children take 5, so the children are 5/8 of the people. The boys are 2/5 of that, and 'of' means multiply: 2/5 × 5/8 = 10/40 = 1/4. Answering 2/5 gives the boys as a fraction of the children only, 3/20 multiplies by the adults' fraction 3/8 instead of the children's, and 3/5 is the fraction of the children who are girls.
- (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
- (c) 2/5 — To find a fraction of a fraction, multiply them together: 3/5 × 2/3 = 6/15, which simplifies to 2/5. Multiplying only the numerators, 3 × 2 = 6, but adding the denominators, 5 + 3 = 8, instead of multiplying them gives 6/8, which simplifies to 3/4. Using only the fraction who study French, 3/5, and ignoring that a further fraction of them also study Spanish gives 3/5. Dividing by 2/3 instead of multiplying by it, using its reciprocal 3/2, gives 3/5 × 3/2 = 9/10.
- (d) 9 — Method: split into two cases — the soups with no restriction, and the mushroom soup on its own — then add the totals. Working: the 2 soups other than mushroom can be paired with any of the 4 sandwiches: 2 × 4 = 8. The mushroom soup can only be paired with the cheese sandwich: 1 combination. Total = 8 + 1 = 9. Answer: 9. 12 comes from working out 3 × 4 = 12 without applying the restriction at all. 8 comes from correctly finding the 2 unrestricted soups' 8 combinations, but forgetting to add back the 1 allowed mushroom-and-cheese combination. 11 comes from taking the unrestricted total of 12 and removing only 1 mushroom combination instead of all 3 disallowed ones.
- (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) 2/25 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.08 = 8/100 = 2/25 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 4). Answer: 2/25. The student's fraction, 8/10, comes from ignoring the zero in the tenths column and reading 0.08 as though it were 0.8; it simplifies to 4/5. 1/125 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places. 25/2 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
- (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.
- (c) 7/30 — Let x = 0.2333... . Because only the 3 recurs, use two multiples of x that line up the recurring part exactly: 10x = 2.333... and 100x = 23.333... . Subtracting removes the recurring tail completely: 100x − 10x = 23.333... − 2.333... = 21, so 90x = 21, giving x = 21/90 = 7/30. Treating the decimal as if it terminated after two places, writing 0.23 as 23/100, ignores that the 3 carries on forever. Misreading which digits recur — treating 0.2333... as if the block '23' repeated, giving 0.232323... — leads to x = 23/99, which is a different, larger recurring decimal from the one given. A numerator slip in the subtraction, computing 22 instead of 21, gives x = 22/90 = 11/45.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.