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) 636 g — Let x = 0.636363... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 63.636363... . Subtracting removes the recurring part exactly: 100x − x = 63.636363... − 0.636363... = 63, so 99x = 63, giving x = 63/99 = 7/11 kg. Converting to grams: 7/11 × 1000 = 7000/11 = 636.3636... g, which rounds to 636 g. Treating the decimal as if it terminated, writing 0.63 as 63/100 kg, gives 630 g when multiplied by 1000 — this drops the recurring part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x, using 100x − 10x = 90x = 63, is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit block, giving x = 63/90 = 7/10 kg, which is 700 g. A numerator slip in the subtraction, 63 − 1 = 62 instead of 63, gives x = 62/99 kg, which is 62000/99 = 626.26... g, rounding to 626 g.
- (a) 33.2 — The radius was rounded to 1 decimal place, so its error interval is 3.15 ≤ r < 3.25. The upper bound for the area uses the upper bound of the radius, squared: area = π × 3.25² ≈ 33.183, which rounds to 33.2 m² (3 s.f.). Using the given value of the radius directly instead of its upper bound, π × 3.2² ≈ 32.2, ignores that the radius itself has a range of possible values. Bounding the radius correctly but forgetting to square it, using area = π × 3.25 ≈ 10.2 instead of π × 3.25², drops the whole squaring step from the area formula. Using the LOWER bound of the radius instead of the upper one, π × 3.15² ≈ 31.2, finds the lower bound of the area, not the upper one.
- (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) 720 — Method: the three medals are awarded one after the other, and each award removes one athlete from the pool available for the next, so the product rule multiplies the number of choices at each stage. Working: 10 athletes could take gold; once gold is settled 9 could take silver; once silver is settled 8 could take bronze; so the number of ways is 10 × 9 × 8 = 720. Answer: 720. The distractors: 1000 comes from working out 10 × 10 × 10, which allows the same athlete to take more than one medal; 120 comes from dividing the product by 6, which would be right only if the three medals were identical, whereas gold, silver and bronze are different; 30 comes from multiplying the 10 athletes by the 3 medals instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (d) 1 × 10⁻³ — Method: for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative, and it counts the places the decimal point moves to the right to leave a coefficient between 1 and 10. Working: the only significant digit is 1, so the coefficient is 1; the decimal point in 0.001 moves three places to the right to reach that 1, so the index is −3. Answer: 1 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 1 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes one thousand grams rather than one thousandth of a gram; 0.1 × 10⁻² is the same mass written with a coefficient of 0.1, which is smaller than 1 and so is not standard form; 1 × 10⁻⁴ comes from counting the zero in front of the decimal point as well as the places after it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 360 km — Method: first find the kilometres per litre by dividing distance by fuel used, then multiply this rate by the new tank size. Working: 180 ÷ 6 = 30 km per litre; 30 × 12 = 360 km. Answer: 360 km. 30 km comes from finding the correct fuel consumption but stopping there, without scaling it up to the full tank. 2160 km comes from multiplying the original distance (180) by the tank size (12) directly, skipping the unit rate. 90 km comes from pairing the numbers the wrong way round: dividing the distance by the new tank size, 180 ÷ 12 = 15, and then multiplying by the original 6 litres, 15 × 6 = 90.
- (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (c) 20 — Method: work out each power separately before subtracting. Working: 6² = 36 and 4² = 16, so 6² − 4² = 36 − 16 = 20. Answer: 20. (4 comes from subtracting first, 6 − 4 = 2, and then squaring that result, instead of squaring each number first. 52 comes from adding the two squares, 36 + 16, instead of subtracting them. 2 comes from subtracting the two numbers, 6 − 4, and forgetting to square 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.
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
- (d) 24.69 — To round to 2 decimal places, look only at the third decimal digit to decide whether the second decimal digit rounds up. In 24.6851 the third decimal digit is 5, and since 5 is 5 or more, the second decimal digit rounds up from 8 to 9, giving 24.69. Rounding to 1 decimal place instead of 2 gives 24.7, one place value too coarse. Keeping the third decimal digit rather than dropping it gives 24.685, which is 3 decimal places. Looking at the fourth decimal digit, 1, instead of the third one, and wrongly deciding that no rounding is needed, leaves the length unrounded at 24.68.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.