✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 1/4 — The empty part of the tank is 80 − 60 = 20 litres. As a fraction of the full capacity, this is 20/80, which simplifies to 1/4. Finding the fraction of the tank that is FULL instead of empty, 60/80, simplifies to 3/4 — the wrong quantity for the question asked. Writing the empty amount over the amount remaining instead of over the full capacity, 20/60, simplifies to 1/3. Comparing the empty amount to 100 instead of to the tank's actual capacity of 80, 20/100, gives 1/5.
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (c) 0.94 — Method: a fraction is written as a decimal by making the denominator a power of ten, because the decimal places record tenths, hundredths and thousandths. Working: 50 × 2 = 100, so the numerator must also be multiplied by 2, giving 47 × 2 = 94 and the equivalent fraction 94/100; 94 hundredths is written with two digits after the decimal point. Answer: 0.94. The distractors: 0.47 comes from treating the denominator as though it were already 100 and writing the digits of the numerator straight after the point; 4.7 comes from dividing 47 by 10 instead of by 50; 0.094 comes from multiplying the denominator by 20 to reach 1000 but the numerator by only 2, giving 94/1000.
5. (a) 20 cm — Method: match the measurement you are given to its own part of the ratio, use it to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the measurement asked for. Working: the length is the second measurement listed, so it matches 4 parts and one part = 16 ÷ 4 = 4 cm; the height is 5 parts, so 5 × 4 = 20. Answer: 20 cm. The distractors: 12 cm is the width, which is the 3-part measurement; 4 cm is the value of one part only; 80 cm comes from multiplying the 16 cm by 5 without first dividing by the 4 parts the length is worth.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (a) 25 — Reverse the operations in reverse order: undo the subtraction by adding 6, then undo the division by multiplying by 5. −1 + 6 = 5, so the number divided by 5 equals 5, and 5 × 5 = 25 — checking, 25 ÷ 5 − 6 = 5 − 6 = −1. A candidate who subtracted 6 again instead of adding worked out −1 − 6 = −7, then −7 × 5 = −35. A candidate who multiplied by 5 before undoing the subtraction, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out −1 × 5 = −5, then −5 + 6 = 1. A candidate who multiplied by 5 but forgot to undo the subtraction at all worked out −1 × 5 = −5 and stopped there.
10. (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
11. (c) 1 : 4 — Convert to the same unit: 1.2 litres = 1200 ml, since 1 litre = 1000 ml. This gives the ratio 300 : 1200. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 300, to get 1 : 4. Giving 3 : 12 divides by 100 only, which is a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 1 : 1.2 has not converted 1.2 litres into millilitres, so the two parts are not in the same unit. Giving 4 : 1 swaps the order, comparing water to concentrate instead of concentrate to water.
12. (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
13. (c) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
14. (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
15. (a) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
16. (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
17. (d) 8 — Method: whatever is inside the brackets is worked out first, and the multiplication is carried out afterwards. Working: inside the brackets, −3 + 7 = 4, and then 2 × 4 = 8. Answer: 8. The distractors: 1 comes from ignoring the brackets and multiplying first, giving 2 × (−3) = −6 and then −6 + 7 = 1; −20 comes from reading −3 + 7 as −(3 + 7) = −10, so that 2 × (−10) = −20; 6 comes from working the brackets out correctly and then adding the 2 instead of multiplying by it, giving 2 + 4 = 6.
18. (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.
19. (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
20. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.