✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
2. (c) 40 cm — Method: split the total length into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the value of the shorter share. Working: the ratio 4:5 has 4 + 5 = 9 parts, so one part is 90 ÷ 9 = 10 cm, and the shorter piece is 4 × 10 = 40 cm. So the shorter piece is 40 cm. Distractor 50 cm is the length of the LONGER piece, not the shorter one. Distractor 45 cm comes from splitting the ribbon into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 10 cm is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
3. (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
4. (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
5. (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.
6. (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.)
7. (a) £20,000 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the profit by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the partner asked about. Working: 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 parts, £48,000 ÷ 12 = £4,000 for one part, and that partner has 5 parts, so 5 × £4,000 = £20,000. Answer: £20,000. The distractors: £4,000 is the value of one part; £12,000 is the 3-part share; £16,000 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by assuming the biggest share must go with the number written last in the ratio.
8. (b) 4 — Method: list the factors of each number and compare them; the highest common factor is the largest number that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 20 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20; the factors of 32 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. The numbers that appear in both lists are 1, 2 and 4, and the largest of these is 4. 2 is a common factor of 20 and 32 but not the largest one. 8 is a factor of 32 but not of 20, since 20 ÷ 8 is not a whole number. 160 is the lowest common multiple of 20 and 32, not their highest common factor. Answer: 4.
9. (c) 1:2 — Convert £1.50 into pence: £1.50 = 150p, so the ratio is 75 : 150. Dividing both parts by 75 gives 1 : 2. Getting 50 : 1 comes from not converting the units at all and simplifying 75 : 1.5. Getting 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 3 : 4 comes from reading 75p as 3/4 of a pound and then comparing it with £1 instead of £1.50.
10. (c) £70 — Method: 20% of an amount is 20/100 of it; a reliable route is to find 10% by dividing by 10 and then double it. Working: 10% of £350 is £350 ÷ 10 = £35, and 20% is twice as much, £35 × 2 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £35 comes from finding 10% and stopping there; £17.50 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out £350 ÷ 20 = £17.50; £280 comes from taking 20% off the money raised rather than finding 20% of it, giving £350 ÷ 5 = £70 and then £350 − £70 = £280.
11. (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.
12. (c) Ben: 2 × 3 = 6, then 6 + 6 = 12 — Multiplication has priority over addition, so 2 × 3 = 6 is worked out first, then 6 + 6 = 12 — this is Ben's method. Amy adds 6 and 2 before multiplying: 6 + 2 = 8, then 8 × 3 = 24, breaking the priority rule. Chen multiplies the wrong pair of numbers, 6 and 2, instead of 2 and 3: 6 × 2 = 12, then 12 + 3 = 15. Dev applies the right order but slips when multiplying, using 5 instead of 6 for 2 × 3, so the final step becomes 6 + 5 = 11.
13. (a) 9:11 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18, and the factors of 22 are 1, 2, 11 and 22, so the highest common factor is 2; 18 ÷ 2 = 9 and 22 ÷ 2 = 11. Answer: 9:11. The distractors: 11:9 comes from dividing both parts correctly but writing them the wrong way round, so it describes 22 to 18 rather than 18 to 22; 9:22 comes from dividing only the first part by 2 and leaving the second part untouched; 9:13 comes from subtracting 9 from each part instead of dividing, since 18 − 9 = 9 and 22 − 9 = 13, and subtracting the same amount from both parts does not give an equivalent ratio.
14. (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
15. (b) 5 — Method: list the factors of each number and pick the largest value that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15; the factors of 25 are 1, 5 and 25. The values in both lists are 1 and 5, and the larger of those is 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 3 comes from choosing a factor of 15 without checking that it also divides 25; 15 comes from assuming that the smaller of the two numbers is always a factor of the larger one; 75 is the lowest common multiple of 15 and 25, given by taking the highest power of each prime instead of the lowest.
16. (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
17. (d) 140 — Method: round each number to the nearest 10, then add the rounded values. Working: 89 rounds to 90 (nearest 10) and 52 rounds to 50 (nearest 10). 90 + 50 = 140. Answer: 140. 141 is the exact value of 89 + 52, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 130 comes from rounding 89 down to 80 instead of up to the nearest 10, 90. 150 comes from rounding 52 up to 60 instead of down to the nearest 10, 50.
18. (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.
19. (c) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
20. (d) 3,200,000 — 1 million = 1,000,000, so 3.2 million = 3.2 × 1,000,000 = 3,200,000. A candidate who moves the decimal point one place too many gets 32,000,000. A candidate who moves it one place too few gets 320,000. A candidate who writes the .2 as extra thousands instead of hundred-thousands gets 3,002,000.