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 — Method: BIDMAS works through the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: 5² = 25, then 4 × 25 = 100, and finally 100 − 100 = 0. Answer: 0. The distractors: 2400 comes from working from left to right and subtracting first, giving (100 − 4) × 25 = 96 × 25 = 2400; −300 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (4 × 5)² = 20² = 400 and then 100 − 400 = −300; 60 comes from reading 5² as 5 × 2 = 10, so that 4 × 10 = 40 and 100 − 40 = 60.
- (c) 1/3 — Method: find non-fiction's fraction of the whole, then multiply by the fraction of non-fiction that is history. Working: total parts = 4 + 5 = 9, so non-fiction is 5/9 of all books. History books are 3/5 of the non-fiction books: 3/5 × 5/9 = 15/45 = 1/3. Answer: 1/3. 3/5 comes from giving the fraction of non-fiction books that are history, without relating it to all the books at the fair. 5/9 comes from stopping after finding the fraction of all books that are non-fiction, without finding the history books within that. 4/15 comes from multiplying 3/5 by the fraction that is fiction (4/9) instead of the fraction that is non-fiction (5/9).
- (a) 3/5 — The question compares the rock albums directly with the pop albums, so write the rock part over the pop part: 3/5. 5/3 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, comparing pop with rock instead of rock with pop. 3/8 comes from comparing the rock albums with the total number of albums, 3 + 5 = 8, instead of with the pop albums. 5/8 comes from comparing the pop albums with the total number of albums instead of the rock albums with the pop albums.
- (b) 3 — Method: solving an index equation like this means finding how many factors of the base multiply together to give the number on the right. Working: 4¹ = 4, 4² = 16 and 4³ = 64, so three factors of 4 are needed. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from listing 4, 16 and 64 and counting the base itself as a step, which gives one more than the index; 6 comes from solving the equation with 2 as the base instead of 4, since 2⁶ = 64; 16 comes from dividing 64 by 4, treating the index as an instruction to divide.
- (d) x⁴ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided. Working: six factors of x on the top and two on the bottom cancel in pairs, leaving 6 − 2 = 4 factors of x. Answer: x⁴. The distractors: x³ comes from dividing the indices, 6 ÷ 2, instead of subtracting them; x⁸ comes from adding the indices, 6 + 2, as though the powers were being multiplied; x¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 6 × 2, as though a power were being raised to a power.
- (b) 6.4 × 10⁸ — There are 5 letter positions, each with 23 choices, and 2 digit positions, each with 10 choices, and every position is independent because repeats are allowed. By the product rule, the total is 23⁵ × 10² = 6,436,343 × 100 = 643,634,300, which is 6.4 × 10⁸ to 2 significant figures. Using all 26 letters instead of the 23 that are actually allowed, ignoring the excluded letters entirely, gives 26⁵ × 10² = 1,188,137,600, which is 1.2 × 10⁹ to 2 significant figures. Adding the seven counts of choices instead of multiplying them, 23 + 23 + 10 + 10 + 23 + 23 + 23, gives 135, which is 1.4 × 10² to 2 significant figures — a total far too small for seven independent positions. Swapping which count of choices belongs to letters and which belongs to digits, working out 23² × 10⁵ instead of 23⁵ × 10², gives 52,900,000, which is 5.3 × 10⁷ to 2 significant figures.
- (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
- (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (a) 2/3 — Total parts = 6 + 4 + 5 = 15. Sopranos and altos together are not tenors: 6 + 4 = 10 parts, so the fraction is 10/15, which simplifies to 2/3. 1/3 comes from finding the fraction of tenors instead of the fraction that is not tenors. 2/5 comes from counting only the sopranos as not tenors and leaving the altos out. 4/9 comes from leaving sopranos out of the total, 4 + 5 = 9, and then using only the altos as the fraction that is not tenors.
- (d) 8 — Method: write $16^{3/4}$ as $(\sqrt[4]{16})^3$ — the denominator of the index gives the root, the numerator gives the power. Working: $\sqrt[4]{16} = 2$, so $16^{3/4} = 2^3 = 8$. Answer: 8. A candidate who multiplies 16 by 3/4 is treating the index as an ordinary factor and gets 12 — a fractional index is not a multiplier. A candidate who takes the square root instead of the fourth root and then cubes it works out $(\sqrt{16})^3 = 4^3$ and gets 64; the denominator 4 names a fourth root, not a square root. A candidate who takes the fourth root of 16 correctly but stops there, without cubing it, gets 2.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 0.5, 0.45, −0.09, −0.15, −0.6 — Method: compare the decimals by their position on a number line, remembering that with negative decimals the one closer to zero is larger. Working: 0.5 and 0.45 are positive, so they come first, with 0.5 the larger of the two. Among the negatives, −0.09 is closest to zero, then −0.15, then −0.6 is furthest from zero and so the smallest. Answer: 0.5, 0.45, −0.09, −0.15, −0.6. 0.5, 0.45, −0.15, −0.09, −0.6 swaps −0.09 and −0.15, treating the negative decimal with more digits after the point as closer to zero. −0.6, −0.15, −0.09, 0.45, 0.5 lists the numbers from smallest to largest instead of largest to smallest. 0.5, 0.45, −0.6, −0.15, −0.09 orders the negative decimals by the size of the digit (0.6 > 0.15 > 0.09) as if they were positive, instead of recognising that a bigger negative decimal is further from zero and so smaller.
- (a) 13 °C — Method: subtract the lowest temperature from the highest temperature to find the difference. Working: the highest temperature is 6 °C and the lowest is −7 °C. Difference = 6 − (−7) = 6 + 7 = 13. Answer: 13 °C. 8 °C comes from using −2 °C as the lowest temperature instead of −7 °C: 6 − (−2) = 8. 5 °C comes from finding the difference between the two negative temperatures instead of the highest and lowest: −2 − (−7) = 5. −1 °C comes from adding the highest and lowest temperatures instead of subtracting: 6 + (−7) = −1.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.