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
- (c) 4 × 10⁴ — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, and 6 − 2 = 4, so each project receives 4 × 10⁴ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 × 2 = 12, so 4 × 10¹². Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 + 2 = 8, so 4 × 10⁸. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 8 − 2 = 6, so 6 × 10⁴.
- (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (b) 0.58333... — Divide 7 by 12 using long division. 70 ÷ 12 = 5 remainder 10, so the first decimal digit is 5. Bring down a 0 to make 100: 100 ÷ 12 = 8 remainder 4, so the second digit is 8. Bring down a 0 to make 40: 40 ÷ 12 = 3 remainder 4, so the third digit is 3. Bring down a 0 to make 40 again — the remainder 4 has reappeared, so the digit 3 repeats forever from here. This gives 7/12 = 0.58333... . Stopping the division after two digits and writing 0.58 treats it as if it terminated, when the remainder is not yet zero. Misreading the pattern as a two-digit repeating block, '58', gives 0.585858..., which wrongly makes the 5 recur as well as the 3. A slip in the long division that carries the wrong remainder forward can make the second digit itself appear to repeat instead of the third, giving 0.588888... .
- (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
- (a) 17 — Method: work out each power separately, then combine them as the question asks. Working: $2^3 = 8$ and $3^2 = 9$, and 8 + 9 = 17. 72 comes from working out 8 × 9 = 72, multiplying the two powers instead of adding them. 12 comes from misreading the powers as repeated multiplication of the base by the index, 2 × 3 + 3 × 2 = 6 + 6 = 12. −1 comes from working out 8 − 9 = −1, subtracting the powers instead of adding them. Answer: 17.
- (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.
- (d) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (d) 2 — Method: a fourth root undoes raising to the power 4, so look for the number that gives 16 when it is multiplied by itself four times. Working: 2 × 2 = 4, 4 × 2 = 8 and 8 × 2 = 16, which uses four factors of 2. Answer: 2. The distractors: 4 comes from taking the square root of 16 instead of its fourth root; 8 comes from halving 16, treating any root as a halving; 64 comes from multiplying 16 by 4 instead of taking a fourth root.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
- (c) 23.375 — The error intervals are 7.5 ≤ base < 8.5 and 4.5 ≤ height < 5.5. The upper bound of the area uses the upper bound of both the base and the height, then halves the product: 8.5 × 5.5 ÷ 2 = 23.375 cm². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 7.5 × 4.5 ÷ 2 = 16.875, gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two upper bounds together but forgetting to halve for the triangle formula, 8.5 × 5.5 = 46.750, treats the triangle as if it were a rectangle. Using the given values directly without applying any bound at all, 8 × 5 ÷ 2 = 20.000, ignores that each rounded measurement has its own range of possible values.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.