✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) −4 — To subtract a negative number, add its positive equivalent: −7 − (−3) becomes −7 + 3. Work out −7 + 3 to get −4. Treating "− (−3)" as simply "−3" without flipping the sign gives the wrong working −7 − 3, which is −10. Ignoring the negative sign on −7 and just subtracting the values, 7 − 3, gives 4, which loses the sign of the starting number. Flipping the sign of both numbers, 7 + 3, gives 10, which changes more than the double negative allows. So −7 − (−3) = −4.
2. (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.
3. (c) £196.35 — Method: convert both prices to pounds, multiply each by its quantity, then add the two totals. Working: 340 rolls at £0.24 each = £81.60; 85 cakes at £1.35 each = £114.75; £81.60 + £114.75 = £196.35. Answer: £196.35. £81.60 comes from working out the cost of the rolls only and forgetting to add the cost of the cakes. £114.75 comes from working out the cost of the cakes only and forgetting to add the cost of the rolls. £122.91 comes from converting 24p to £0.024 instead of £0.24, a place value error of a factor of 10 in the price of the rolls, before adding the correctly worked out cost of the cakes.
4. (a) 7 — Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10, so 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 7. Meera's answer of 0.07 comes from dividing 0.7 by 10 instead of by 0.1, the wrong way round. A candidate who confuses 0.1 with 0.01 multiplies by 100 instead of 10 and gets 70. A candidate who thinks dividing by a number less than 1 does not change the value gets 0.7.
5. (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
6. (d) 7:15 — Method: write the two parts in the order asked for, red first, then divide both parts by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 7 are 1 and 7, and the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15, so the only common factor is 1; dividing both parts by 1 leaves both counts unchanged. Answer: 7:15, which is already in its simplest form. The distractors: 15:7 is the ratio of blue to red, the reverse of the order the question asks for; 7:5 comes from cancelling the digit 1 out of 15, which is not a division by a common factor; 1:2 comes from dividing 15 by 7, rounding the result to 2 and writing the ratio as 1 to 2, but 7 is not a factor of 15 so that division is not exact.
7. (a) 36 — Method: find the lowest common multiple of 6 and 9, then move up the list of common multiples until one is greater than 20. Working: the common multiples of 6 and 9 are 18, 36, 54 …. 18 is not greater than 20, so the next one, 36, is the smallest value of n that is greater than 20. 18 is the lowest common multiple itself, but it fails the 'greater than 20' condition. 54 is the common multiple after 36, one step too far. 27 is a multiple of 9 but not of 6, since 27 ÷ 6 is not a whole number. Answer: 36.
8. (d) 0.25 — Dividing by 1000 moves every digit three place-value columns, so 250 ÷ 1000 = 0.25. A candidate who divides by 100 instead of 1000 gets 2.5. A candidate who divides by 10,000 instead of 1000 gets 0.025. A candidate who divides by 10 instead of 1000 gets 25.
9. (a) 8 — To undo 'multiply by 4, then add 8', reverse the operations in reverse order: subtract 8 first, then divide by 4. 40 − 8 = 32, and 32 ÷ 4 = 8, so the number is 8. A candidate who added 8 again instead of subtracting worked out 40 + 8 = 48, then 48 ÷ 4 = 12. A candidate who divided before subtracting, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out 40 ÷ 4 = 10, then 10 − 8 = 2. A candidate who multiplied instead of dividing at the last step worked out (40 − 8) × 4 = 32 × 4 = 128.
10. (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.
11. (d) 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17. — Check 51 for small prime factors: 51 ÷ 3 = 17, and both 3 and 17 are themselves prime, so 51 = 3 × 17 and 51 is not a prime number — it has factors other than 1 and itself. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 and concluding wrongly that none of them divide 51 misses that 3 does divide it exactly, so the claim that 51 is prime because it avoids 2, 3 and 5 is false. Assuming any odd number must be prime ignores that 51 = 3 × 17 is a counterexample — plenty of odd numbers are not prime. Misreading 51 as the even number 52 leads to the false claim that it is divisible by 2; 51 itself is odd, and 2 is not one of its factors. So 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17.
12. (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
13. (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.
14. (d) 19 — 2² = 4, then 4 × 4 = 16, then 3 + 16 = 19. Adding before multiplying gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 4 = 28 — multiplication comes before addition. Squaring the product instead of just the 2 gives 4 × 2 = 8, then 8² = 64, then 3 + 64 = 67. Working strictly left to right throughout gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 2 = 14, then 14² = 196.
15. (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.
16. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
17. (d) £120 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the prize by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the share asked for. Working: 2 + 3 + 4 = 9 parts, £360 ÷ 9 = £40 for one part, and the share asked for is 3 parts, so 3 × £40 = £120. Answer: £120. The distractors: £40 is the value of one part rather than of a 3-part share; £80 is the 2-part share; £160 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by picking the largest share instead of the one the question names.
18. (c) 280 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 6.8 rounds to 7 because the next digit is 8, and 41 rounds to 40 because its next digit is 1, so the estimate is 7 × 40 = 280. Answer: 280. The distractors: 240 comes from cutting 6.8 down to 6 instead of rounding it up to 7, giving 6 × 40 = 240; 350 comes from rounding 41 up to 50 when the digit after its first significant figure is less than 5, giving 7 × 50 = 350; 28 comes from multiplying the leading digits only and losing the place value of the 40, which makes the estimate ten times too small.
19. (d) 5 — Method: the greatest number of identical bunches is the highest common factor of the two flower totals; then divide the red roses by that number of bunches. Working: 60 = 2² × 3 × 5 and 84 = 2² × 3 × 7, so their highest common factor is 2² × 3 = 12. That means 12 bunches, and 60 ÷ 12 = 5 red roses in each. 7 is the number of white roses in each bunch, since 84 ÷ 12 = 7, not red roses. 12 is the number of bunches itself, not the number of red roses in one bunch. 20 comes from working out 60 ÷ 3 = 20, dividing by only part of the highest common factor. Answer: 5.
20. (c) £80 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/9 of a price means dividing that price by 9. Working: £720 ÷ 9 = £80. Answer: £80. The distractors: £6480 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving £720 × 9 = £6480; £640 comes from working out what is left of the £720 once the case is paid for, £720 − £80, instead of the cost of the case itself; £72 comes from dividing by 10 instead of 9, treating one ninth as one tenth.