✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 8/5 — The reciprocal of a fraction a/b is b/a — swap the numerator and denominator. So the reciprocal of 5/8 is 8/5. A candidate who wrote 5/8 gave the original fraction, not its reciprocal. A candidate who worked out 1 − 5/8 = 3/8 confused 'reciprocal' with subtracting from 1. A candidate who wrote −8/5 inverted the fraction correctly but introduced an unnecessary sign change.
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (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.
5. (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
9. (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.
10. (c) £90 — Method: split the total amount into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find Chloe's share. Working: the ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts, so one part is £150 ÷ 5 = £30, and Chloe's share is 3 × £30 = £90. So Chloe receives £90. Distractor £60 is Ben's share, not Chloe's. Distractor £75 comes from splitting the money into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor £30 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
11. (a) 6 — Method: list the factors of each number and compare them. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18; the factors of 24 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24. The only option that appears in both lists is 6. 8 is a factor of 24 but not of 18. 9 is a factor of 18 but not of 24. 12 is a factor of 24 but not of 18. Answer: 6.
12. (c) 18 — 45 ÷ 5 = 9, and 2 × 9 = 18. A candidate who stops after finding one fifth gets 9. A candidate who uses 3/5 instead of 2/5 gets 27. A candidate who uses 4/5 instead of 2/5 gets 36.
13. (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
14. (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
15. (a) 3200 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 37 rounds to 40 (the digit after the first, 7, rounds the 3 up to 4), and 84 rounds to 80, so the estimate is 40 × 80 = 3200. 2400 comes from rounding 37 down to 30, keeping the first digit as it is instead of letting the 7 round it up, giving 30 × 80 = 2400. 3108 comes from multiplying the exact numbers, 37 × 84, without rounding either of them first. 120 comes from adding the rounded numbers, 40 + 80 = 120, instead of multiplying them. Answer: 3200.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (d) 60 — Method: 75% is three quarters, so divide by 4 to find one quarter and then multiply by 3. Working: 80 ÷ 4 = 20 for one quarter, and 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60 milk chocolates. The distractors: 20 is one quarter of 80, which is 25% and not 75%; 55 comes from subtracting 25 from 80 rather than taking 25% of 80 away from it; 75 comes from quoting the percentage itself as a number of chocolates.
19. (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
20. (a) 35 — Method: 25% is 25/100, which cancels to 1/4, so finding 25% of an amount means dividing it by 4. Working: 25% = 25/100 = 1/4, and 140 ÷ 4 = 35. Answer: 35 pens. The distractors: 70 comes from halving instead of quartering, confusing 25% with 50%; 105 comes from working out the pens that are not red, which is 75% of 140, instead of the pens that are; 25 comes from ignoring the percent sign and reading the 25% as a count of 25 pens.