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) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
- (a) 8 × 10² — Method: to multiply numbers written in standard form, multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 4 × 2 = 8 for the coefficients, and −3 + 5 = 2 for the indices; 8 already lies between 1 and 10, so no adjustment is needed. Answer: 8 × 10². The distractors: 6 × 10² comes from adding the coefficients, 4 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 8 × 10⁸ comes from ignoring the minus sign and adding 3 + 5; 8 × 10⁻¹⁵ comes from multiplying the indices, −3 × 5, instead of adding them.
- (a) They cannot both be describing the same path — Jon's measurement means the true length, l, satisfies 11.5 m ≤ l < 12.5 m. Mia's measurement means the true length satisfies 12.55 m ≤ l < 12.65 m. These two ranges do not overlap, so the two measurements cannot both be describing the same path. 'They must both be describing the same path' ignores that the two ranges do not overlap at all. 'Jon's measurement must be wrong' wrongly assumes Jon is the one at fault, when the mismatch does not show which measurement, if either, is wrong. 'Mia's measurement must be wrong' makes the same unjustified assumption in the other direction.
- (c) x⁽²⁄³⁾ — Method: a root can be written as a fractional index, with the root's index as the denominator and the power inside the root as the numerator. Working: the cube root gives a denominator of 3 and the square inside gives a numerator of 2, so ∛(x²) = x⁽²⁄³⁾. Answer: x⁽²⁄³⁾. The distractors: x⁽³⁄²⁾ comes from writing the fraction upside down, with the root's index on top; x⁽¹⁄⁶⁾ comes from treating the square as a second root and multiplying 1/3 by 1/2; x⁶ comes from multiplying the root's index by the power, 3 × 2, and keeping the result as a whole-number index.
- (b) 30 — 70 is close to the perfect square 64, so √70 ≈ 8. 65 is close to the perfect cube 64, so ∛65 ≈ 4. Multiplying these estimates: 8 × 4 = 32, which rounds to 30 to 1 significant figure. Estimating ∛65 as 5 instead of 4, perhaps by confusing it with the nearby cube 125 = 5³ rather than the much closer 64 = 4³, and then multiplying by 8, gives 8 × 5 = 40. Adding the two estimates instead of multiplying them, 8 + 4 = 12, rounds to 10 to 1 significant figure. Rounding both estimates up to the next whole number using the wrong nearby power for each, taking √70 as 9 and ∛65 as 5, gives 9 × 5 = 45, which rounds to 50 to 1 significant figure.
- (c) 9π cm² — The area of a circle is π × r². With a radius of 3 cm this is π × 3² = 9π cm², and this is exact because π has not been replaced by any approximation. Writing 28.3 cm² replaces π with a rounded decimal value, 3.14, and then rounds the result again, so it is only an approximation. Writing 28.26 cm² uses π ≈ 3.14 without a final rounding step, but this is still only an approximation of 9π, not the exact value. Writing 27 cm² comes from replacing π with the rough approximation 3, which is even further from the true value.
- (a) 25 — Reverse the operations in reverse order: undo the subtraction by adding 6, then undo the division by multiplying by 5. −1 + 6 = 5, so the number divided by 5 equals 5, and 5 × 5 = 25 — checking, 25 ÷ 5 − 6 = 5 − 6 = −1. A candidate who subtracted 6 again instead of adding worked out −1 − 6 = −7, then −7 × 5 = −35. A candidate who multiplied by 5 before undoing the subtraction, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out −1 × 5 = −5, then −5 + 6 = 1. A candidate who multiplied by 5 but forgot to undo the subtraction at all worked out −1 × 5 = −5 and stopped there.
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (b) 1/9 — Method: let x stand for the recurring decimal, multiply by the power of ten that moves exactly one repeating block past the decimal point, subtract the original equation so that the recurring tail cancels, and solve the equation that is left. Working: let x = 0.111...; the repeating block is one digit long, so multiply by 10 to give 10x = 1.111...; subtracting the first equation from the second gives 10x − x = 1.111... − 0.111..., that is 9x = 1; dividing both sides by 9 gives x = 1/9. Answer: 1/9. The distractors: 1/10 comes from dividing by the multiplier 10 at the last step instead of by the 9 that is left in front of x; 1/11 comes from recalling the elevenths family instead of the ninths, although 1/11 = 0.0909... has a two-digit repeating block rather than a one-digit one; 11/100 comes from stopping the decimal after two digits and converting 0.11 into hundredths.
- (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.
- (d) 1.6 × 10⁵ — 5.6 ÷ 3.5 = 1.6, and 7 − 2 = 5, so the average turnover per shop is 1.6 × 10⁵ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 × 2 = 14, so 1.6 × 10¹⁴. Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 + 2 = 9, so 1.6 × 10⁹. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 5.6 − 3.5 = 2.1, so 2.1 × 10⁵.
- (c) 43 — Method: work out each power separately before adding. Working: 3³ = 27 and 2⁴ = 16, so 3³ + 2⁴ = 27 + 16 = 43. Answer: 43. (25 comes from using 3² instead of 3³, giving 9 + 16. 35 comes from working out 2⁴ as 2 × 4 = 8 instead of 2 × 2 × 2 × 2, giving 27 + 8. 432 comes from multiplying the two powers together instead of adding them.)
- (d) x⁽¹⁄²⁾ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided, and fractional indices are subtracted like any other fractions. Working: 3/4 − 1/4 = 2/4, which simplifies to 1/2, so the result is x⁽¹⁄²⁾. Answer: x⁽¹⁄²⁾. The distractors: x comes from adding the indices, 3/4 + 1/4 = 1, as though the powers were being multiplied; x³ comes from dividing the indices, so that 3/4 divided by 1/4 gives 3; x⁽³⁄¹⁶⁾ comes from multiplying the indices, 3/4 × 1/4.
- (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) 45 — Method: count the ordered pairings with the product rule and then correct for the fact that a game between two players is the same game whichever player it is counted from. Working: each of the 10 players meets 9 opponents, so 10 × 9 = 90 pairings are counted; every game has been counted twice, once from each player's side, so the number of games is 90 ÷ 2 = 45. Answer: 45. The distractors: 90 comes from stopping at 10 × 9 and never halving, so that each game is counted once for each of its two players; 55 comes from adding 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 instead of 9 + 8 + ... + 1, which counts one extra round of games; 20 comes from multiplying the 10 players by the 2 players in each game rather than pairing the players with one another.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.