✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (b) 1 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index before the subtraction, and a negative number multiplied by itself gives a positive result. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so the calculation becomes 4 − 3 = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: −7 comes from squaring only the 2 and leaving the minus sign outside the index, giving −(2²) − 3 = −4 − 3 = −7; −1 comes from subtracting the square from 3 instead of 3 from the square, giving 3 − 4 = −1; 25 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the index, giving (−2 − 3)² = (−5)² = 25.
4. (c) 36 — Add the parts of the ratio: 3 + 4 = 7. Divide the total by the number of parts: 84 ÷ 7 = 12, so one part is worth 12. The smaller share has 3 parts: 3 × 12 = 36. (48 is the larger share, using 4 parts instead of 3. 42 comes from splitting 84 in half, treating the ratio as if it were 1:1. 28 comes from dividing 84 by 3 — one of the ratio numbers — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7.)
5. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (c) 12 — Method: division and multiplication have equal priority, so they are carried out in the order they are written, from left to right; a negative divided by a negative is positive. Working: (−36) ÷ (−6) = 6, and then 6 × 2 = 12. Answer: 12. The distractors: 3 comes from carrying out the multiplication first, (−6) × 2 = −12 followed by (−36) ÷ (−12) = 3; −12 comes from treating a negative divided by a negative as negative, giving −6 and then −6 × 2 = −12; 6 comes from stopping at the division and never carrying out the multiplication by 2.
9. (b) 17 — Roots and powers are worked out first: √25 = 5 and 4² = 16. Division comes next: 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Then addition and subtraction, left to right: 5 + 16 − 4 = 17. A candidate who treated 4² as 4 × 2 = 8, multiplying the base by the exponent instead of squaring it, worked out 5 + 8 − 4 = 9. A candidate who did not evaluate the root and used 25 itself worked out 25 + 16 − 4 = 37. A candidate who ignored the priority of division and worked through 5 + 16 − 12 ÷ 3 strictly left to right got 5 + 16 = 21, then 21 − 12 = 9, then 9 ÷ 3 = 3.
10. (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.
11. (b) £45.90 — The cost is 18 × £3.45 = £62.10. Profit = £108 − £62.10 = £45.90. A candidate who does not borrow in the tenths column, doing 1 − 0 = 1 instead of borrowing to make 10 − 1 = 9 and so leaving the units as 8 − 2 = 6, gets £46.10. A candidate who adds the cost to the selling price instead of subtracting gets £108 + £62.10 = £170.10. A candidate who gives the cost instead of the profit gets £62.10.
12. (d) 50 g — Method: the milk is 4 parts of the ratio, so use the milk to find the value of one part, then read off the chocolate, which is 1 part. Working: one part = 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and the chocolate is one part. Answer: 50 g. The distractors: 40 g comes from treating the 200 g as the total mass of the mixture and splitting it into 1 + 4 = 5 parts; 250 g is the total mass of the finished mixture, the 200 g of milk plus the chocolate, rather than the chocolate on its own; 800 g comes from multiplying 200 by 4 instead of dividing, which scales the milk up rather than down to the chocolate.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (b) 2.1 m — The three pieces use 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 m of wood. Remaining wood = 4.8 − 2.7 = 2.1 m. A candidate who miscounts and only subtracts 2 pieces instead of 3 gets 4.8 − 1.8 = 3.0 m. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 4.8 + 2.7 = 7.5 m. A candidate who gives the length used instead of the length remaining gets 2.7 m.
16. (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.
17. (b) £35 — Method: round each price to the nearest pound, then add the rounded prices. Working: £9.95 rounds to £10, £19.90 rounds to £20 and £4.99 rounds to £5, and £10 + £20 + £5 gives the estimate. Answer: £35. The distractors: £40 comes from rounding each price up to the nearest £10 rather than to the nearest pound, giving £10 + £20 + £10; £32 comes from cutting the pence off each price instead of rounding it, giving £9 + £19 + £4; £34.84 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
18. (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
19. (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
20. (a) 5 — Method: each index is worked out first, and subtracting a negative number is the same as adding the positive. Working: (−2)³ = (−2) × (−2) × (−2) = −8 and (−3)² = (−3) × (−3) = 9, while − (−4) becomes + 4, so the calculation becomes −8 + 9 + 4 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: −13 comes from taking (−3)² as −9, giving −8 − 9 + 4 = −13; −3 comes from reading − (−4) as − 4, giving −8 + 9 − 4 = −3; 21 comes from treating every power of a negative number as positive, so that (−2)³ is taken as 8 and the calculation becomes 8 + 9 + 4 = 21.