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) 2, 3, 4, 5 — Method: work out which whole numbers satisfy both parts of the inequality. Working: n ≥ 2 means n can be 2 or more; n < 6 means n must be less than 6, so 6 itself is not included. The whole numbers that fit both conditions are 2, 3, 4 and 5. Answer: 2, 3, 4, 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 treats < 6 as ≤ 6 and wrongly includes 6. 3, 4, 5 treats ≥ 2 as > 2 and wrongly leaves out 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 wrongly includes 1, which does not satisfy n ≥ 2.
- (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
- (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) 25 cm — Method: for a cube, the edge length is the cube root of the volume. Working: 25 × 25 × 25 = 15,625, so the edge length is 25 cm. 5 cm comes from cube-rooting 125 instead of 15,625, misreading the number of digits. 50 cm comes from working out 25 × 2 = 50, doubling the correct edge length. 125 cm comes from taking the square root of the volume instead of the cube root, since 125 × 125 = 15,625 — that would be the side of a SQUARE of area 15,625, not the edge of a cube of that volume. Answer: 25 cm.
- (b) (60 + 4.5π) cm² — Method: find the area of the rectangle and the area of the semicircle separately, then add them. Working: the rectangle has area 10 × 6 = 60 cm². The semicircle has radius 3 cm, so its area is half of π × 3² = half of 9π = 4.5π cm². Total area = (60 + 4.5π) cm². Answer: (60 + 4.5π) cm². (60 + 18π) cm² comes from using the diameter (6 cm) as the radius in the semicircle area formula: half of π × 6² = 18π. (60 + 9π) cm² comes from forgetting to halve the full circle's area: π × 3² = 9π. (60 + 3π) cm² comes from finding the semicircle's arc length instead of its area: half of 2 × π × 3 = 3π.
- (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) 8,000,000,000 — Method: a power of ten is 1 followed by that many zeros, so 8 × 10⁹ is 8 multiplied by 1 followed by nine zeros. Working: 10⁹ = 1,000,000,000, and 8 × 1,000,000,000 puts an 8 in front of those nine zeros. Answer: 8,000,000,000. The distractors: 800,000,000 comes from writing nine digits altogether instead of nine zeros after the 8; 720 comes from reading 10⁹ as 10 × 9 = 90 and then working out 8 × 90; 0.000000008 comes from treating the index as negative and carrying the decimal point nine places to the left.
- (d) 636 g — Let x = 0.636363... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 63.636363... . Subtracting removes the recurring part exactly: 100x − x = 63.636363... − 0.636363... = 63, so 99x = 63, giving x = 63/99 = 7/11 kg. Converting to grams: 7/11 × 1000 = 7000/11 = 636.3636... g, which rounds to 636 g. Treating the decimal as if it terminated, writing 0.63 as 63/100 kg, gives 630 g when multiplied by 1000 — this drops the recurring part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x, using 100x − 10x = 90x = 63, is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit block, giving x = 63/90 = 7/10 kg, which is 700 g. A numerator slip in the subtraction, 63 − 1 = 62 instead of 63, gives x = 62/99 kg, which is 62000/99 = 626.26... g, rounding to 626 g.
- (b) 4 — Method: the cube root of a number is the value that multiplies by itself three times to give that number. Working: 4 × 4 × 4 = 64, so ∛64 = 4. Answer: 4. (8 comes from finding the square root of 64 instead of the cube root. 192 comes from multiplying 64 by 3 instead of finding the number that cubes to 64. 21.3 comes from dividing 64 by 3 instead of finding its cube root.)
- (d) £50.00 — The sale price is 85% of the original, so the original price = £42.50 ÷ 0.85 = £50.00. 15% of £42.50 is £6.375. A candidate who finds 15% of £42.50 and subtracts it from the sale price gets £42.50 − £6.375 = £36.125, which is £36.13 to the nearest penny. A candidate who adds 15% of £42.50 instead of reversing the decrease gets £42.50 + £6.375 = £48.875, which is £48.88 to the nearest penny. A candidate who divides by 0.15 instead of 0.85 gets £283.33.
- (a) 7 — Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10, so 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 7. Meera's answer of 0.07 comes from dividing 0.7 by 10 instead of by 0.1, the wrong way round. A candidate who confuses 0.1 with 0.01 multiplies by 100 instead of 10 and gets 70. A candidate who thinks dividing by a number less than 1 does not change the value gets 0.7.
- (d) 720 — Method: the three medals are awarded one after the other, and each award removes one athlete from the pool available for the next, so the product rule multiplies the number of choices at each stage. Working: 10 athletes could take gold; once gold is settled 9 could take silver; once silver is settled 8 could take bronze; so the number of ways is 10 × 9 × 8 = 720. Answer: 720. The distractors: 1000 comes from working out 10 × 10 × 10, which allows the same athlete to take more than one medal; 120 comes from dividing the product by 6, which would be right only if the three medals were identical, whereas gold, silver and bronze are different; 30 comes from multiplying the 10 athletes by the 3 medals instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (a) £4.80 — The total cost of the melons is 8 × £1.35 = £10.80. Profit is the selling total minus the cost, so £15.60 − £10.80 = £4.80. Subtracting the price of just one melon from the selling total instead of the total cost of all eight, £15.60 − £1.35, gives £14.25. Miscalculating the cost of the melons as 8 × £1.30 = £10.40, dropping the 5p from each price, gives a profit of £15.60 − £10.40 = £5.20. Adding the selling total and the cost together instead of subtracting them, £15.60 + £10.80, gives £26.40.
- (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
- (c) 3⁻³ — Method: when dividing powers of the same base, subtract the index of the number you are dividing by from the index of the number being divided, keeping them in the order the question writes them. Working: 2 − 5 = −3, so 3² ÷ 3⁵ = 3⁻³. It is worth checking this against the numbers: 3² = 9 and 3⁵ = 243, and 9 ÷ 243 = 1/27, which is 3⁻³. 3³ comes from subtracting the other way round, 5 − 2 = 3, which reverses the sign of the index and gives 27 instead of 1/27. 3⁷ comes from working out 2 + 5 = 7, which is the rule for multiplying powers, not dividing them. 3¹⁰ comes from multiplying the indices, 2 × 5 = 10, instead of subtracting them. Answer: 3⁻³.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.