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) 0.1666... — Method: a fraction bar means divide, so the decimal is found by dividing the numerator by the denominator; when a remainder comes back unchanged the division never ends, the digit it produces repeats for ever, and the exact value has to be written with that recurring digit rather than a rounded one. Working: 1 ÷ 6 is set out as 1.000 ÷ 6; six does not go into 1, and six goes into 10 tenths once with 4 left over, so the first decimal digit is 1; the 4 left over makes 40 hundredths, and six goes into 40 six times with 4 left over again; that same remainder of 4 returns at every step, so the digit 6 repeats without end. Answer: 0.1666... The distractors: 0.16 comes from carrying the division out to two decimal places and stopping there, as though the decimal terminated; 0.17 comes from rounding the division to two decimal places, which gives a value close to one sixth but not equal to it; 0.6 comes from writing the digit of the denominator straight after the decimal point, as though 1/6 meant six tenths.
- (b) 5.1 — ∛130 lies between 5 and 6, since 125 < 130 < 216, and closer to 5 because 130 is much nearer 125 than 216. To pin down the first decimal place, test the midpoint of the tenth, 5.05: 5.05³ = 5.05 × 5.05 × 5.05 ≈ 128.79. Since 130 is greater than 128.79, ∛130 lies above 5.05, so it rounds to 5.1 rather than 5.0. Rounding down to 5.0, on the assumption that a value close to the lower bound 125 must round down, ignores that 5.05³ is already less than 130. Estimating 5.2 overshoots the true root: 5.2³ = 140.608, which is well above 130, so ∛130 cannot round to 5.2. Taking 6.0, the upper of the two whole numbers the root lies between, ignores that 130 is far nearer to 5³ = 125 than to 6³ = 216, so the root sits just above 5, not just below 6.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (b) 120 — Method: fill the positions on the shelf one at a time; each book placed leaves one fewer book available for the next position, and the product rule multiplies the choices. Working: there are 5 books for the first position, 4 for the second, 3 for the third, 2 for the fourth and 1 for the last, so the number of orders is 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 120. Answer: 120. The distractors: 25 comes from multiplying the 5 books by the 5 positions rather than multiplying the shrinking number of choices at each position; 60 comes from halving the correct product, as though each order had been counted twice in the way that pairs are; 720 comes from carrying the product one factor too far and working out 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1, as though there were six books.
- (b) 2.1 m — The three pieces use 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 m of wood. Remaining wood = 4.8 − 2.7 = 2.1 m. A candidate who miscounts and only subtracts 2 pieces instead of 3 gets 4.8 − 1.8 = 3.0 m. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 4.8 + 2.7 = 7.5 m. A candidate who gives the length used instead of the length remaining gets 2.7 m.
- (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.
- (a) 1,850 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 100 is 50, so the actual number of visitors, v, satisfies 1,750 ≤ v < 1,850. 1,850 sits exactly on the excluded upper boundary, since a value of 1,850 would round to 1,900, not 1,800. Answer: 1,850. (1,750 is a genuine possible value — it sits at the included lower boundary. 1,799 is a genuine possible value, just below the upper boundary. 1,760 is a genuine possible value, well inside the interval.)
- (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.
- (c) 19 — Without any restriction there would be 5 × 4 = 20 different sandwiches. The restriction removes exactly one combination, cheese and mustard on gluten-free bread, so subtract 1: 20 − 1 = 19. 20 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 15 comes from removing the gluten-free bread altogether, as if none of the fillings were available on it, 5 × 3 = 15. 16 comes from removing the cheese and mustard filling completely, as if it were not available on any bread, 4 × 4 = 16.
- (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.
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (b) 2⁵ — Method: a power outside brackets multiplies the index of every factor inside them, and dividing powers of the same base subtracts their indices. Working: (5² × 2³)³ = 5⁶ × 2⁹ and (5³ × 2²)² = 5⁶ × 2⁴. Dividing gives 5⁶⁻⁶ × 2⁹⁻⁴, and since 5⁰ = 1 the whole expression reduces to 2⁵. Answer: 2⁵. The distractors: 2² comes from adding the outside index to each inside index instead of multiplying, which gives 5⁵ × 2⁶ over 5⁵ × 2⁴; 2¹³ comes from adding the indices of 2 when dividing, 9 + 4, instead of subtracting them; 2 comes from applying the outside power to the first factor inside each bracket only, leaving 5⁶ × 2³ over 5⁶ × 2².
- (c) £8.20 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from the amount paid. Working: 35 × £1.48 = £51.80. Amount paid = 3 × £20 = £60.00. Change = £60.00 − £51.80 = £8.20. Answer: £8.20. (£58.52 comes from forgetting to multiply the price by the 35 litres and subtracting only £1.48 from £60. £7.50 comes from rounding £1.48 up to £1.50 before multiplying, giving a total of £52.50 instead of £51.80. £9.20 comes from miscarrying in the pence column when subtracting £51.80 from £60.00.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.