✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 100 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 7 − 3 = 4 parts, and this is worth 40 beads. Divide to find one part: 40 ÷ 4 = 10. The total number of parts is 7 + 3 = 10, so the total number of beads is 10 × 10 = 100. (40 is just the given difference between gold and silver, not the total. 70 is the number of gold beads only, using 7 parts. 30 is the number of silver beads only, using 3 parts.)
3. (d) 1/4 — Method: count the digits after the decimal point to choose a denominator that is a power of ten, then cancel the fraction by the highest common factor of the numerator and the denominator. Working: 0.25 has two digits after the point, so 0.25 is 25 hundredths and can be written as 25/100; the highest common factor of 25 and 100 is 25, and 25 ÷ 25 = 1 with 100 ÷ 25 = 4. Answer: 1/4. The distractors: 2/5 comes from reading the two digits after the point as a numerator and a denominator and writing 2 over 5; 1/25 comes from putting 1 over the digits after the point, as though 0.25 meant one twenty-fifth; 1/40 comes from miscounting the decimal places and using a denominator of 1000, giving 25/1000, which cancels by 25 to 1/40.
4. (d) 25 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total membership by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the group asked for. Working: 3 + 5 = 8 parts, 40 ÷ 8 = 5 members in one part, and the seniors are 5 parts, so 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 seniors. The distractors: 15 is the number of juniors, which is the 3-part group; 5 is the size of one part only; 24 comes from dividing the 40 by 5, the seniors' number in the ratio, to get 8 and then multiplying that by 3.
5. (d) 2:3:5 — The highest common factor of 12, 18 and 30 is 6. Divide every part by 6: 12 ÷ 6 = 2, 18 ÷ 6 = 3, 30 ÷ 6 = 5, giving 2 : 3 : 5. Dividing by 2 instead of 6 gives 6 : 9 : 15, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Dividing by 3 instead of 6 gives 4 : 6 : 10, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified either. Swapping the first two parts gives 3 : 2 : 5, the parts in the wrong order.
6. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
12. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
13. (c) −5 — Method: the bracket is worked out first, then the multiplication and the division, which stand as separate parts, and the subtraction that joins them is carried out last; subtracting a negative is the same as adding. Working: (−3) + 5 = 2, so the product is 2 × (−4) = −8; the division gives (−6) ÷ 2 = −3; joining them gives −8 − (−3) = −8 + 3 = −5. Answer: −5. The distractors: −11 comes from taking away 3 instead of taking away −3, giving −8 − 3 = −11; −1 comes from working from left to right once the bracket is done, giving −8 − (−6) = −2 and then −2 ÷ 2 = −1; 11 comes from treating the first product as positive because it was worked out from a bracket, giving 8 − (−3) = 11.
14. (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.
15. (d) 24 km — Method: a fraction acts as an operator, so finding 8/12 of a distance means dividing by the denominator and multiplying by the numerator. Working: 36 ÷ 12 = 3, so one twelfth of the walk is 3 km, and eight twelfths is 3 × 8 = 24 km. Answer: 24 km. The distractors: 12 km comes from working out the part of the walk still left, the other four twelfths, instead of the part already completed; 288 km comes from multiplying by the numerator without dividing by the denominator, giving 36 × 8 = 288; 4.5 km comes from dividing by the numerator instead of multiplying by it, giving 36 ÷ 8 = 4.5.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (b) 18 — Method: multiply the two numbers ignoring their signs, then apply the rule that a negative number multiplied by a negative number gives a positive answer. Working: 6 × 3 = 18; since both −6 and −3 are negative, the product is positive. Answer: 18. −18 comes from keeping the answer negative, as if only one of the two negative signs affects the sign of the product. −9 comes from adding the two numbers instead of multiplying them, −6 + (−3) = −9. 9 comes from adding 6 and 3 as if both numbers were positive, ignoring the negative signs entirely.
19. (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.
20. (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.