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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
- (a) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (a) 2, 3, 4, 5 — Method: work out which whole numbers satisfy both parts of the inequality. Working: n ≥ 2 means n can be 2 or more; n < 6 means n must be less than 6, so 6 itself is not included. The whole numbers that fit both conditions are 2, 3, 4 and 5. Answer: 2, 3, 4, 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 treats < 6 as ≤ 6 and wrongly includes 6. 3, 4, 5 treats ≥ 2 as > 2 and wrongly leaves out 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 wrongly includes 1, which does not satisfy n ≥ 2.
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
- (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.
- (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
- (b) £96.90 — Method: multiply the number of units by the cost per unit, then convert the result from pence to pounds. Working: 340 × 28.5p = 9690p; converting to pounds, 9690p ÷ 100 = £96.90. Answer: £96.90. £969.00 comes from misplacing the decimal point when converting pence to pounds, dividing by 10 instead of 100. £9.69 comes from misplacing the decimal point the other way, dividing by 1000 instead of 100. £102.00 comes from rounding the rate to 30p per unit before multiplying.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (b) 24 — List multiples of 8 and of 12: multiples of 8 are 8, 16, 24, 32; multiples of 12 are 12, 24, 36. The lowest number in both lists is 24, so the lighthouses next flash together after 24 minutes. Multiplying the two numbers together, 8 × 12, gives 96, which double-counts the common factor of 4 shared by 8 and 12. Working out the highest common factor instead of the lowest common multiple gives 4, far too soon a time for both lighthouses to line up again. Adding the two numbers, 8 + 12, gives 20, which is not even a multiple of either 8 or 12. So the lighthouses next flash together after 24 minutes.
- (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
- (c) 62.35 ≤ r < 62.45 — Method: with a value rounded to 1 decimal place, the error interval reaches half of 0.1 either side. Working: half of 0.1 is 0.05, so the interval runs from 62.4 − 0.05 to 62.4 + 0.05. Answer: 62.35 ≤ r < 62.45. (62 ≤ r < 63 comes from rounding to the nearest whole number instead of 1 decimal place. 62.35 ≤ r ≤ 62.45 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 62.3 ≤ r < 62.5 comes from using 0.1 either side instead of half of it.)
- (a) 71 — 2.9⁴ = (2.9²)². First, 2.9² = 8.41. Then square that: 8.41² = 70.7281, since 841² = 707281 and the decimal point moves four places. To 2 significant figures this rounds to 71, because the figure after the first two significant figures (7 and 0) is a 7, which rounds the 0 up to 1. Rounding the working down instead of up — taking 70.7281 to 70 — ignores that the next figure is 5 or more. Rounding 2.9 up to 3 before doing any working at all, then computing 3⁴ = 81, uses a much cruder approximation and overshoots the true value. Rounding 8.41 all the way down to 8 before squaring, 8² = 64, rounds far too aggressively and loses the accuracy needed for 2 significant figures.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.