✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 12 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 5 − 2 = 3 parts, and this is worth 18. Divide to find one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Cats have 2 parts: 2 × 6 = 12. (30 is the number of dogs, using 5 parts instead of 2. 6 is the value of one part — the number of cats is 2 lots of this, not just one. 9 comes from dividing 18 by 2 and stopping there, instead of dividing by the difference in parts, 3, and then multiplying by 2.)
2. (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
3. (a) 1/5 — Work out the bracket first: 2 + 3 = 5. The reciprocal of 5 is 1/5. A candidate who forgot to take the reciprocal and just gave the value of the bracket wrote 5. A candidate who took the reciprocal but made a sign error wrote −1/5. A candidate who found the reciprocal of each number separately and added them, treating reciprocal as if it distributes over addition, worked out 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6.
4. (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
5. (a) 75% — Method: to express one quantity as a percentage of another, divide the part by the whole and multiply by 100. Working: 18 ÷ 24 = 0.75, and 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%. The distractors: 25% is the percentage she got wrong, 6 out of 24; 133% comes from dividing the whole by the part, 24 ÷ 18; 18% comes from writing the number of correct answers with a percent sign.
6. (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.
7. (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
8. (c) 150 m — Method: a fraction acts as an operator, so finding 3/7 of a length means dividing by the denominator and multiplying by the numerator. Working: 350 ÷ 7 = 50, so one seventh of the route is 50 m, and three sevenths is 50 × 3 = 150 m. Answer: 150 m. The distractors: 50 m comes from finding one seventh and stopping there instead of multiplying by 3; 1050 m comes from multiplying by the numerator without dividing by the denominator, giving 350 × 3 = 1050; 200 m comes from working out the stretch of the route the footpath does not run alongside, which is 4/7 of 350 m, instead of the stretch it does.
9. (b) £20 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then take the parts belonging to the person asked about. Working: 1 + 2 = 3 parts, £60 ÷ 3 = £20 for one part, and Isla has 1 part. Answer: £20. The distractors: £40 is the 2-part share, which belongs to her brother; £30 comes from reading 1:2 as one part out of two and halving the £60; £120 comes from multiplying the £60 by 2 instead of dividing it into 3 parts.
10. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
11. (c) 2/3 — Method: fractions with the same denominator are added by adding the numerators and leaving the denominator alone, because the parts are already the same size. Working: 1/3 + 1/3 has numerators 1 + 1 = 2 and the denominator stays as 3, giving 2/3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 2/6 comes from adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 1 + 1 over 3 + 3; 2/9 comes from adding the numerators but multiplying the denominators, 1 + 1 over 3 × 3; 1/9 comes from multiplying throughout instead of adding, 1 × 1 over 3 × 3.
12. (d) 1:4 — Convert 1.4 l to millilitres: 1.4 l = 1400 ml. The ratio is 350 : 1400. Divide both parts by 350: 350 ÷ 350 = 1 and 1400 ÷ 350 = 4, giving 1 : 4. Misreading 1.4 l as 14 (moving the decimal point) gives 350 : 14, which simplifies to 25 : 1 — a very different, implausible ratio. Dividing by 175 instead of 350 gives 2 : 8, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 4 : 1, litres to millilitres the wrong way round.
13. (a) 15 : 12 — Multiply both parts of the ratio 5 : 4 by the same number, 3, to get an equivalent ratio: 5 × 3 = 15 and 4 × 3 = 12, giving 15 : 12. Giving 15 : 16 multiplies the two parts by different scale factors (×3 and ×4), which changes the ratio. Giving 9 : 8 adds 4 to each part instead of multiplying, which also changes the ratio. Giving 4 : 5 swaps the order of the two parts.
14. (b) 0.6 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 10, then read off the decimal. Working: 3/5 = 6/10 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 2) = 0.6. Answer: 0.6. 0.35 comes from combining the digits 3 and 5 directly after the decimal point instead of converting the fraction. 0.53 comes from writing the numerator and denominator digits in the wrong order. 1.67 comes from flipping the fraction to 5/3 before converting to a decimal.
15. (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
16. (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
17. (d) 3 : 2 : 5 — The highest common factor of 45, 30 and 75 is 15. Divide each part by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 75 ÷ 15 = 5, giving 3 : 2 : 5. Giving 9 : 6 : 15 divides by 5, a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 15 : 10 : 25 divides by 3 only, even further from simplest form. Giving 2 : 3 : 5 has the first two parts swapped.
18. (a) 1:8 — Convert 2 kg to grams: 2 kg = 2000 g. The ratio is 250 : 2000. The highest common factor of 250 and 2000 is 250. Divide both parts by 250: 250 ÷ 250 = 1 and 2000 ÷ 250 = 8, so the ratio is 1 : 8. Leaving the kilograms unconverted gives 250 : 2, which simplifies to 125 : 1 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 50 instead of 250 gives 5 : 40, which still shares a common factor of 5, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 1, grams to kilograms the wrong way round.
19. (c) 2/3 — Method: multiply the numerators together and the denominators together, then divide both parts of the result by their highest common factor. Working: 3 × 14 = 42 and 7 × 9 = 63, giving 42/63; the highest common factor of 42 and 63 is 21, and 42 ÷ 21 = 2 with 63 ÷ 21 = 3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 17/16 comes from adding the numerators and adding the denominators, giving (3 + 14)/(7 + 9); 27/98 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 3/7 × 9/14; 2/21 comes from cancelling the 7 into the 14 in the numerator but leaving the 7 in the denominator, giving 6/63.
20. (b) 6 — List the factors of each number: the factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12; the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18. The common factors are 1, 2, 3 and 6, and the highest of these is 6. Picking 2, a common factor but not the largest, gives an answer that is too small. Picking 3, also a common factor but still not the largest, gives another answer that is too small. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 36. So the highest common factor of 12 and 18 is 6.