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) 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) 20 — Each length has its own error interval: 11.5 ≤ a < 12.5 and 6.5 ≤ b < 7.5. The upper bound of a sum is found by adding the upper bounds of both quantities: 12.5 + 7.5 = 20. Bounding only one of the two lengths and adding the other quantity's given value unbounded, 12.5 + 7 = 19.5, misses that both measurements carry their own uncertainty. Adding the lower bounds instead of the upper bounds, 11.5 + 6.5 = 18, gives the lower bound of the sum, not the upper one. Using a whole centimetre of error either side instead of half a centimetre, (12 + 1) + (7 + 1) = 21, comes from forgetting the error is half the rounding unit.
- (c) 2.5 × 10⁶ — Divide the A values: 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. Subtract the powers of 10: 4 − (−2) = 4 + 2 = 6. So the answer is 2.5 × 10⁶. A candidate who worked out 4 − 2 = 2, treating the subtraction of a negative as an ordinary subtraction, wrote 2.5 × 10². A candidate who subtracted in the wrong order, −2 − 4 = −6, wrote 2.5 × 10⁻⁶. A candidate who multiplied the A values instead of dividing, 5 × 2 = 10, and added the powers, 4 + (−2) = 2, then rewrote 10 × 10² in standard form as 1 × 10³.
- (d) 6 — Method: the square root of a product can be found either by multiplying first and then rooting, or by rooting each factor and multiplying the two roots together. Working: 4 × 9 = 36, and 6 × 6 = 36, so the root is 6; the same value comes from √4 × √9 = 2 × 3. Answer: 6. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying inside the root and then leaving the root untaken; 5 comes from rooting each factor and adding the results, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 18 comes from rooting the 4 only and leaving the 9 untouched, giving 2 × 9.
- (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) 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) 90 — Multiply the number of choices for each course: 5 × 6 × 3 = 90. 14 comes from adding the three numbers instead of multiplying them. 30 comes from multiplying only the starters and mains, 5 × 6, and forgetting the dessert. 18 comes from multiplying only the mains and desserts, 6 × 3, and forgetting the starter.
- (c) 1/x⁶ — Method: raising a power to another power multiplies the two indices, and a negative index means one over the matching positive power. Working: −2 × 3 = −6, so (x⁻²)³ = x⁻⁶, and x⁻⁶ written as a fraction is 1/x⁶. Answer: 1/x⁶. The distractors: x⁶ comes from multiplying the indices correctly but dropping the minus sign; 1/x⁵ comes from adding the sizes of the indices, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; −x⁶ comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign in front of the whole term.
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
- (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) 300 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 8,900 rounds to 9,000 and 29 rounds to 30; cancelling a zero from each gives 900 ÷ 3. Answer: 300. The distractors: 450 comes from rounding 29 down to 20 instead of to the nearest ten, giving 9,000 ÷ 20; 3,000 comes from rounding 29 to 3 rather than to 30, a place-value slip that divides by a number ten times too small; 307 is the exact quotient rounded to the nearest whole number, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
- (c) 12.44 — The error intervals are 155.5 ≤ mass < 156.5 and 11.5 ≤ volume < 12.5. To make a quotient as small as possible, use the SMALLEST possible numerator together with the LARGEST possible denominator: 155.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.44 g/cm³. Using the lower bound for both mass and volume, 155.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.52, forgets that dividing by a smaller number makes the result bigger, not smaller — that pairing does not give a minimum at all. Dividing the two given rounded values directly, 156 ÷ 12 = 13, ignores that both measurements have their own error interval. Using the upper bound of mass with the upper bound of volume, 156.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.52, takes both bounds the same way round; it is neither the minimum nor the maximum, since the maximum needs the largest mass with the smallest volume, 156.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.61.
- (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.