✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 8:12 — Method: two ratios are equivalent when one is obtained from the other by multiplying, or dividing, both parts by the same number. Working: multiplying both parts of 2:3 by 4 gives 2 × 4 = 8 and 3 × 4 = 12, and the check runs the other way too, since the highest common factor of 8 and 12 is 4 and dividing both parts by 4 returns 2:3. Answer: 8:12. The distractors: 8:3 comes from multiplying only the first part by 4 and leaving the second part alone; 12:8 comes from multiplying both parts by 4 correctly but then writing the two parts the wrong way round; 4:5 comes from adding 2 to each part instead of multiplying, and adding the same amount to both parts changes the ratio.
2. (b) £50 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the largest share. Working: 3 + 4 + 5 = 12 parts, £120 ÷ 12 = £10 for one part, and the largest share is 5 parts, so 5 × £10 = £50. Answer: £50. The distractors: £10 is the value of one part only; £30 is the 3-part share, which is the smallest one; £40 is the 4-part share, the middle one.
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. (d) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
5. (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.
6. (d) 1,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 49 rounds to 50 and 21 rounds to 20, and 50 × 20 = 1,000 because 5 × 2 = 10 and the two rounded numbers carry one zero each. Answer: 1,000. The distractors: 800 comes from rounding 49 down to 40 instead of to the nearest ten; 1,500 comes from rounding 21 up to 30 rather than down to 20; 1,029 is the exact product 49 × 21, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
7. (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
8. (d) 21 — Add the parts: 5 + 3 = 8. Divide the total by the number of parts: 56 ÷ 8 = 7, so one part is worth 7 counters. Blue has 3 parts: 3 × 7 = 21. (35 is the number of red counters, using 5 parts instead of 3. 28 comes from splitting 56 counters in half instead of in the ratio 5:3. 7 is the value of one part — the number of blue counters is 3 lots of this, not just one.)
9. (b) 11 — Method: roots and the multiplication are worked out before the addition and subtraction, and what is left is then worked through from left to right. Working: √144 = 12, √25 = 5 and 2 × 3 = 6, so the calculation becomes 12 − 6 + 5, which gives 6 + 5 = 11. Answer: 11. The distractors: 1 comes from carrying out the addition before the subtraction, giving 12 − (6 + 5) = 12 − 11 = 1; 35 comes from working from left to right with no priority, giving 12 − 2 = 10, then 10 × 3 = 30 and 30 + 5 = 35; 7 comes from combining the two roots as √(144 + 25) = √169 = 13 and then subtracting the product, giving 13 − 6 = 7.
10. (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.
11. (c) £22.50 — Method: find the cost of 1 kg, then multiply by the mass wanted. Working: £36 ÷ 2.4 = £15 per kilogram, and 1.5 × £15 = £22.50. Answer: £22.50. The distractors: £15 is the price of 1 kg, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; £54 comes from multiplying the £36 by 1.5 without first reducing it to a price per kilogram; £57.60 comes from using the scale factor upside down, multiplying £36 by 2.4 ÷ 1.5 = 1.6 instead of by 1.5 ÷ 2.4.
12. (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.
13. (c) 0.07 — Each digit after the decimal point has a place value: the first digit is tenths, the second is hundredths, the third is thousandths. In 3.472, the 4 is in the tenths place and the 7 is in the hundredths place, so it is worth 0.07. Reading it as 7 ignores place value altogether, treating it as if it were a whole number. Reading it as 0.7 puts it one place too big, in the tenths place. Reading it as 0.007 puts it one place too small, in the thousandths place. The digit 7 in 3.472 is worth 0.07.
14. (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor, 2x: 4x ÷ 2x = 2 and 6x ÷ 2x = 3, giving 2 : 3. Writing 4 : 6 has not been simplified at all. Writing 2x : 3x has cancelled the common factor of 2 but left the x in, so it is not written as a ratio of whole numbers. Writing 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round.
15. (a) −22 — Method: both multiplications are carried out before the addition, and a positive multiplied by a negative is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12 and 2 × (−5) = −10, so the calculation becomes −12 + (−10) = −22. Answer: −22. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus signs and working out 3 × 4 + 2 × 5 = 22; 50 comes from working from left to right with no priority at all, giving −12 + 2 = −10 and then −10 × (−5) = 50; −2 comes from taking 2 × (−5) as +10, so that −12 + 10 = −2.
16. (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.
17. (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
18. (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.
19. (b) 5 — Method: divide the total amount of sugar by the amount needed for one cake, then round down because a part-used amount of sugar cannot make an extra whole cake. Working: 3 1/2 ÷ 2/3 = 7/2 × 3/2 = 21/4 = 5.25; only 5 complete cakes can be made, since the leftover 0.25 of a portion is not enough for a 6th cake. Answer: 5. 5.25 gives the exact result of the division without rounding down to a whole number of cakes. 7 comes from multiplying 3.5 by 2 and ignoring the need to also divide by 3 as part of dividing by the fraction 2/3. 6 comes from rounding 5.25 up to the nearest whole number instead of down, wrongly assuming a 6th cake could be made from the leftover sugar.
20. (b) 31 — Method: a prime number has exactly two factors, 1 and itself, so check each number between 30 and 40 for other factors. Working: 3 × 11 = 33, so 33 is not prime. 2 × 17 = 34, so 34 is not prime. 4 × 9 = 36, so 36 is not prime. 31 has no factors other than 1 and 31, so it is prime. Answer: 31.