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) 7 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, and finally 12 − 5 = 7. Answer: 7. The distractors: −17 comes from squaring only the 2 and keeping the minus sign, giving 3 × (−4) = −12 and then −12 − 5 = −17; 31 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (3 × (−2))² = (−6)² = 36 and then 36 − 5 = 31; −3 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the multiplication, giving 3 × (4 − 5) = 3 × (−1) = −3.
- (c) £8.20 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from the amount paid. Working: 35 × £1.48 = £51.80. Amount paid = 3 × £20 = £60.00. Change = £60.00 − £51.80 = £8.20. Answer: £8.20. (£58.52 comes from forgetting to multiply the price by the 35 litres and subtracting only £1.48 from £60. £7.50 comes from rounding £1.48 up to £1.50 before multiplying, giving a total of £52.50 instead of £51.80. £9.20 comes from miscarrying in the pence column when subtracting £51.80 from £60.00.)
- (d) 1050 ml — Convert both amounts to millilitres: 1.8 litres = 1800 ml and 3/4 litre = 750 ml. Subtracting gives 1800 − 750 = 1050 ml. Confusing 3/4 with 75% and converting it as 75 ml instead of 750 ml gives 1800 − 75 = 1725 ml. Adding the amount poured out instead of subtracting it gives 1800 + 750 = 2550 ml. Misreading 1.8 litres as 0.8 litres, losing the whole litre, gives 800 − 750 = 50 ml.
- (c) Sam is correct — The leading zeros in 0.070268 are not significant, so the first three significant figures are 7, 0 and 2. The next digit along is 6, and since 6 is 5 or more, the third significant figure rounds up from 2 to 3, giving 0.0703. This means Sam's answer is correct. Writing 0.070 keeps only 2 significant figures, one short of what was asked. Writing 0.0702 ignores the digit 6 that follows and leaves the third figure unrounded. Writing 0.0704 rounds the third figure up twice, as if a later digit had also pushed it up.
- (b) 2⁵ — Method: a power outside brackets multiplies the index of every factor inside them, and dividing powers of the same base subtracts their indices. Working: (5² × 2³)³ = 5⁶ × 2⁹ and (5³ × 2²)² = 5⁶ × 2⁴. Dividing gives 5⁶⁻⁶ × 2⁹⁻⁴, and since 5⁰ = 1 the whole expression reduces to 2⁵. Answer: 2⁵. The distractors: 2² comes from adding the outside index to each inside index instead of multiplying, which gives 5⁵ × 2⁶ over 5⁵ × 2⁴; 2¹³ comes from adding the indices of 2 when dividing, 9 + 4, instead of subtracting them; 2 comes from applying the outside power to the first factor inside each bracket only, leaving 5⁶ × 2³ over 5⁶ × 2².
- (c) 5/11 — Let x = 0.45 recurring, so x = 0.454545... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 45.454545... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part exactly, because it lines up digit for digit: 100x − x = 45.454545... − 0.454545... = 45, so 99x = 45, giving x = 45/99 = 5/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 45/100 = 9/20, which is only 0.45 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 45 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 45/90 = 1/2. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 45 − 1 = 44 instead of 45, gives 44/99 = 4/9.
- (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.
- (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
- (a) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (c) 12 — Method: division and multiplication have equal priority, so they are carried out in the order they are written, from left to right; a negative divided by a negative is positive. Working: (−36) ÷ (−6) = 6, and then 6 × 2 = 12. Answer: 12. The distractors: 3 comes from carrying out the multiplication first, (−6) × 2 = −12 followed by (−36) ÷ (−12) = 3; −12 comes from treating a negative divided by a negative as negative, giving −6 and then −6 × 2 = −12; 6 comes from stopping at the division and never carrying out the multiplication by 2.
- (d) £800 — Rounding 38.7 to 1 significant figure gives 40, and rounding 21.40 to 1 significant figure gives 20. Multiplying the rounded values gives an estimate of 40 × 20 = £800. Rounding 21.40 to the nearest whole number instead of to 1 significant figure gives 21, and 40 × 21 = £840, one place value too fine for the price. Adding the rounded values instead of multiplying them gives 40 + 20 = £60. Rounding both numbers to 2 significant figures instead of 1, giving 39 and 21, produces 39 × 21 = £819.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.