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
- (b) 5/27 — Method: multiply the numerators together and the denominators together, then simplify. Working: (5 × 2)/(6 × 9) = 10/54 = 5/27. Answer: 5/27. 7/15 comes from adding the fractions instead of multiplying: (5+2)/(6+9) = 7/15. 15/4 comes from flipping the second fraction, as if dividing: (5 × 9)/(6 × 2) = 45/12 = 15/4. 5/3 comes from cancelling the two denominators against each other, dividing both 6 and 9 by 3 to leave 5/2 × 2/3 = 10/6 = 5/3; cancelling is only valid between a numerator and a denominator, never between two denominators.
- (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.
- (d) 6 + 2√3 — Multiply √3 by each term in the bracket separately. First term: √3 × 2 = 2√3. Second term: √3 × √12 = √(3 × 12) = √36 = 6. Adding the two results in the order they were found, and writing the whole-number term first, gives 6 + 2√3. Adding the numbers under the root for the second term instead of multiplying them (3 + 12 = 15) gives √15 in place of 6, leading to √15 + 2√3. Multiplying √3 by the 2 but never distributing to the √12 term at all leaves just 2√3. Treating √3 × 2 as if the 3 were multiplied by the 2 inside the root, √3 × 2 → √6, while still getting the second term correct, gives 6 + √6.
- (c) £196.35 — Method: convert both prices to pounds, multiply each by its quantity, then add the two totals. Working: 340 rolls at £0.24 each = £81.60; 85 cakes at £1.35 each = £114.75; £81.60 + £114.75 = £196.35. Answer: £196.35. £81.60 comes from working out the cost of the rolls only and forgetting to add the cost of the cakes. £114.75 comes from working out the cost of the cakes only and forgetting to add the cost of the rolls. £122.91 comes from converting 24p to £0.024 instead of £0.24, a place value error of a factor of 10 in the price of the rolls, before adding the correctly worked out cost of the cakes.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
- (b) 5.2 × 10⁶ — Method: write the digits as a coefficient that is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places the decimal point moves to reach that position. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 5.2, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,200,000 until it sits between the 5 and the 2, a move of 6 places. Answer: 5.2 × 10⁶. The distractors: 52 × 10⁵ is the same amount but not in standard form, because 52 is not less than 10; 5.2 × 10⁵ comes from counting the five zeros in 5,200,000 rather than the six places the decimal point moves; 5.2 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 6 — By Pythagoras' theorem, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides: (√12)² + (√24)² = 12 + 24 = 36. The hypotenuse is √36 = 6 cm. Adding the two side lengths directly instead of squaring them first, treating the theorem as if it were a straight sum of the sides, gives √12 + √24 = 2√3 + 2√6. Multiplying the two squared values, 12 × 24 = 288, instead of adding them, then taking the root, gives √288 = 12√2. Adding the squares correctly to get 36 but forgetting to take the square root at the end leaves 36 as the answer instead of the hypotenuse itself.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
- (a) 28.8 km/h — A compound unit is converted one part at a time. There are 3600 seconds in an hour, so in one hour the cyclist travels 8 × 3600 = 28 800 metres. There are 1000 metres in a kilometre, so 28 800 m = 28 800 ÷ 1000 = 28.8 km/h. 28 800 km/h leaves the distance in metres, 0.48 km/h converts the seconds to minutes rather than to hours, and 2.22 km/h divides by 3.6 instead of multiplying.
- (b) 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5 — A measurement given to the nearest metre could have been rounded from anywhere up to half a metre below or above it: 15 − 0.5 = 14.5 and 15 + 0.5 = 15.5. Every value from 14.5 up to (but not reaching) 15.5 rounds to 15, so the error interval is 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5, with the lower bound included and the upper bound excluded. Making both ends strict, 14.5 < l < 15.5, wrongly excludes 14.5 itself, even though 14.5 does round to 15. Making both ends inclusive, 14.5 ≤ l ≤ 15.5, wrongly includes 15.5, which actually rounds up to 16, not 15. Using a whole metre either side instead of half a metre, giving 14 ≤ l < 16, comes from forgetting that the error is only half the rounding unit.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.