✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
2. (d) 4:3 — Boys = 28 − 16 = 12. Girls to boys is 16 : 12. The highest common factor of 16 and 12 is 4. Divide both parts by 4: 16 ÷ 4 = 4 and 12 ÷ 4 = 3, so the ratio is 4 : 3. Dividing by 2 instead of 4 gives 8 : 6, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 3 : 4, boys to girls instead of girls to boys. Writing girls to the whole class, 16 : 28, simplifies to 4 : 7 — that compares girls to everyone, not girls to boys.
3. (d) 3 : 2 — Convert both amounts to pence: £3.60 = 360p and £2.40 = 240p, giving the ratio 360 : 240. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 120, to get 3 : 2. Giving 360 : 240 has not been simplified at all. Giving 2 : 3 swaps the order. Giving 36 : 24 has been divided by 10, which is a common factor but not the highest one, so it is not yet in simplest form.
4. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
5. (d) 30 — Method: 50% is one half, so 50% of a quantity is the quantity divided by 2. Working: 60 ÷ 2 = 30. Answer: 30. The distractors: 120 comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing; 3000 comes from multiplying by 50 without dividing by 100; 6 comes from finding 10% instead of 50%.
6. (d) 25% — Method: to convert a decimal to a percentage, multiply by 100. Working: 0.25 × 100 = 25. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 0.25% comes from writing a percent sign after the decimal without multiplying; 2.5% comes from multiplying by 10 instead of 100; 250% comes from multiplying by 1000.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
11. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 588 rounds to 600 (1 s.f.) and 31 rounds to 30 (1 s.f.). 600 ÷ 30 = 20. Answer: 20. 17 comes from cutting 588 down to 500, keeping the leading digit as it stands instead of rounding it up to 1 significant figure, 600, then dividing by the correctly rounded 30. 200 comes from misreading the rounded divisor 30 as 3, giving 600 ÷ 3 instead of 600 ÷ 30. 19 is the exact value of 588 ÷ 31 rounded to the nearest whole number, found without rounding the numbers first.
12. (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
13. (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
14. (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.
15. (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.
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. (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
18. (a) 18 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then square each rounded number and add the results. Working: 2.9 rounds to 3 and 3.1 rounds to 3, so the estimate is 3² + 3² = 9 + 9. Answer: 18. The distractors: 36 comes from adding before squaring, working out (3 + 3)² instead of 3² + 3²; 12 comes from doubling each rounded number instead of squaring it, adding 6 and 6; 6 comes from adding the two rounded numbers and forgetting to square them at all.
19. (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
20. (d) 7:15 — Method: write the two parts in the order asked for, red first, then divide both parts by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 7 are 1 and 7, and the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15, so the only common factor is 1; dividing both parts by 1 leaves both counts unchanged. Answer: 7:15, which is already in its simplest form. The distractors: 15:7 is the ratio of blue to red, the reverse of the order the question asks for; 7:5 comes from cancelling the digit 1 out of 15, which is not a division by a common factor; 1:2 comes from dividing 15 by 7, rounding the result to 2 and writing the ratio as 1 to 2, but 7 is not a factor of 15 so that division is not exact.