Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Growth and decay, compound interest worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions on "growth and decay, compound interest" — DfE statement R16. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.
part Higher
Answer key: Growth and decay, compound interest worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) £14224 — Value after 2 years: £15000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £16224. Money left after buying the trailer: £16224 − £2000 = £14224. £14200 comes from treating the two 4% increases as a single flat 8% increase applied once instead of compounding: £15000 × 1.08 = £16200, and £16200 − £2000 = £14200. £13600 comes from applying the 4% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £15000 × 1.04 = £15600, and £15600 − £2000 = £13600. £18224 comes from adding the £2000 instead of subtracting it: £16224 + £2000 = £18224.
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (c) £7590 — Apply interest, then subtract the payment, once for each year. Year 1: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400, then 8400 − 600 = 7800. Year 2: 7800 × 1.05 = 8190, then 8190 − 600 = 7590, so £7590 remains after 2 years. Forgetting the payments altogether and only compounding the interest gives 8000 × 1.05 = 8400, then 8400 × 1.05 = 8820 — this ignores that £600 leaves the fund every year. Subtracting the £600 BEFORE adding interest each year, instead of after, gives (8000 − 600) × 1.05 = 7770, then (7770 − 600) × 1.05 = 7528.50, which changes the order the two operations happen in and so changes the amount that earns interest each year. Subtracting the two payments as one lump sum of £1200 at the very end, from the no-withdrawal total 8820 − 1200 = 7620, ignores that the first £600 withdrawal also stops earning interest during the second year. Always apply interest, then the withdrawal, in that order, once for every single year.
- (c) £338.69 — To increase by 12% each year, multiply by 1.12 twice. £270 × 1.12 × 1.12 = £338.688, which rounds to £338.69 (nearest penny, since the third decimal place is 8). £334.80 comes from treating the two 12% increases as a single flat 24% increase applied once instead of compounding: £270 × 1.24 = £334.80. £302.40 comes from applying the 12% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £270 × 1.12 = £302.40. £338.68 comes from rounding £338.688 down to the nearest penny instead of up.
- (c) £7617.60 — To decrease by 8% each year, multiply by 0.92 (100% − 8%) twice. £9000 × 0.92 × 0.92 = £7617.60. £7560.00 comes from treating the two 8% decreases as a single flat 16% decrease applied once instead of compounding: £9000 × 0.84 = £7560.00. £8280.00 comes from applying the 8% decrease only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £9000 × 0.92 = £8280.00. £10497.60 comes from multiplying by 1.08 twice, increasing the value instead of decreasing it: £9000 × 1.08 × 1.08 = £10497.60.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (d) 4 years — Apply the recurrence repeatedly. V_1 = 0.85 × 18000 = 15300. V_2 = 0.85 × 15300 = 13005. V_3 = 0.85 × 13005 = 11054.25. V_4 = 0.85 × 11054.25 = 9396.1125. V_3 = £11054.25 is still above £10000, but V_4 = £9396.11 has dropped below it, so the answer is 4 years. Stopping at V_3 and calling it '3 years' misreads £11054.25 as already below £10000, or comes from wrongly modelling the fall as a flat £2700 a year (15% of the original value each time, without compounding), which crosses £10000 a year too early. Continuing one extra step to V_5 = 0.85 × 9396.1125 = 7986.70 and calling it '5 years' overshoots, since the value had already dropped below £10000 at V_4. Doubling the percentage decrease to 30% by mistake gives V_1 = 0.7 × 18000 = 12600, then V_2 = 0.7 × 12600 = 8820, which is already below £10000 after only 2 years — the wrong rate crosses the threshold too fast.
- (c) £624.32 — A 4% rise is a multiplier of 1.04, applied once each year. After year 1: 5000 × 1.04 = 5200. After year 2: 5200 × 1.04 = 5408. After year 3: 5408 × 1.04 = 5624.32. The question asks for the interest, not the value of the account, so take away the amount invested at the start: 5624.32 − 5000 = 624.32. The total interest earned is £624.32.
- (d) £6705 — After the first year: £6400 × 1.08 = £6912. After the second year: £6912 × 0.97 = £6704.64, which rounds to £6705 (nearest pound). £6720 comes from treating the +8% and −3% changes as a single net +5% change applied to the original amount instead of applying each change in turn: £6400 × 1.05 = £6720. £6912 comes from applying only the first year's growth and stopping there, without applying the second year's fall. £7104 comes from adding the two percentages together as +11% and applying that to the original amount instead of applying each change to the correct starting amount in turn: £6400 × 1.11 = £7104.
- (a) 4 weeks — Apply the recurrence week by week. C_1 = 0.75 × 500 + 40 = 375 + 40 = 415. C_2 = 0.75 × 415 + 40 = 311.25 + 40 = 351.25. C_3 = 0.75 × 351.25 + 40 = 263.4375 + 40 = 303.4375. C_4 = 0.75 × 303.4375 + 40 = 227.578125 + 40 = 267.578125. C_3 = 303.4375 is still above 300, but C_4 = 267.58 has dropped below it, so the lake first becomes safe after 4 weeks. Taking 25% of the ORIGINAL 500 every week instead of 25% of the current amount, a flat 125 each time, gives 500 − 125 + 40 = 415, then 415 − 125 + 40 = 330, then 330 − 125 + 40 = 245, which crosses 300 a week too early and gives the wrong answer of 3 weeks. Continuing one extra step to C_5 = 0.75 × 267.578125 + 40 = 200.68 + 40 = 240.68 and calling it 5 weeks overshoots, since the concentration had already dropped below 300 at C_4. Forgetting the 40 units of run-off each week and only applying the decay gives C_1 = 0.75 × 500 = 375, then C_2 = 0.75 × 375 = 281.25 — this is already below 300 after only 2 weeks, because without the run-off the concentration falls much faster.
- (d) 218 — The rule x_{n+1} = 0.8x_n + 50 must be applied once for each step, using the result of the previous step every time — not the same starting value repeated. Starting from x_0 = 200: 0.8 × 200 = 160, so x_1 = 160 + 50 = 210. Then 0.8 × 210 = 168, so x_2 = 168 + 50 = 218. Stopping after one iteration leaves x_1 = 210, not x_2. Applying only the multiplier twice without adding 50 at each step uses 0.8² = 0.64, and 0.64 × 200 = 128, which drops the 50 completely. Adding 50 twice at the end instead of once per step, 128 + 100 = 228, still does not reproduce the actual recurrence, because the 50 added at the first step is itself multiplied by 0.8 at the second step. After two iterations, x_2 = 218.
- (d) 100 — Rearrange L = 0.6L + 40 by collecting the L terms on one side: L − 0.6L = 40, which gives 0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ 0.4 = 100. Subtracting the other way round, 0.6L − L = 40, gives −0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ (−0.4) = −100 — a sign error that flips the answer negative even though a long-run value here must be positive. Ignoring the 0.6L term completely and solving L = 40 directly gives 40, which throws away the recurrence's own multiplier. Dividing 40 by 0.6 instead of by the correct coefficient 0.4 gives 40 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 66.7, a slip that comes from dividing by the coefficient of L on the RIGHT of the original equation rather than by what is left once the L terms are collected on one side. Always collect the L terms first, then divide by whatever coefficient of L remains.
- (c) £2717.20 — The recurrence B_{n+1} = 1.02B_n − 200 must be applied once for each month, using the previous month's balance each time. Starting from B_0 = 3000: 3000 × 1.02 = 3060, so B_1 = 3060 − 200 = 2860. Then 2860 × 1.02 = 2917.2, so B_2 = 2917.2 − 200 = 2717.2. Stopping after one month leaves B_1 = £2860.00, not the balance after two months. Applying two months of interest together, 1.02² = 1.0404, and 3000 × 1.0404 = 3121.2, and then subtracting 400 in one go, 3121.2 − 400 = 2721.2, does not reproduce the recurrence, because the second month's interest should be earned on the balance after the first repayment, not on the original £3000. Subtracting £200 twice from B_1 without adding a second month of interest, 2860 − 200 = 2660, drops the interest for the second month altogether. The balance after 2 months is £2717.20.
- (b) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
- (a) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.