✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 10 — First find 1/4 of 80, which is 20, then find 1/2 of that: 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Adding the two fractions together instead of applying them one after the other, 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4, and finding 3/4 of 80 gives 60. Finding 1/4 of 80 = 20 correctly but stopping before applying the second fraction leaves 20 as the final answer. Finding 1/2 of 80 = 40 first but forgetting to then find 1/4 of that leaves 40 as the final answer.
2. (a) 36 — Method: for the highest common factor, take the LOWER power of each prime that appears in both numbers. Working: for 2, the lower power is 2² (from 108); for 3, the lower power is 3² (from 72), so the highest common factor is 2² × 3² = 4 × 9 = 36. 216 comes from taking the higher power of each prime instead, 2³ × 3³ = 8 × 27 = 216, which gives the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. 108 is simply one of the two numbers, not their highest common factor. 6 comes from multiplying the primes without any powers at all, 2 × 3 = 6. Answer: 36.
3. (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
4. (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
5. (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.
6. (c) 0.024 — Multiply the digits ignoring the decimal points: 6 × 4 = 24. Count the total number of decimal places in the two numbers being multiplied: 0.6 has 1 decimal place and 0.04 has 2, giving 3 in total. Place the decimal point in 24 so that there are 3 digits after it: 0.024. Counting only 2 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.24. Counting 4 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.0024. Counting only 1 decimal place instead of 3 — in effect moving the point in just one of the two numbers, as if the calculation were 6 × 0.4 — gives 2.4. So 0.6 × 0.04 = 0.024.
7. (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.
8. (d) 4 13/15 — Convert to fifteenths: 1/5 is equivalent to 3/15 (multiply by 3/3), and 2/3 is equivalent to 10/15 (multiply by 5/5), so 3 1/5 is equivalent to 3 3/15 and 1 2/3 is equivalent to 1 10/15. Add the whole numbers (3 + 1 = 4) and the fractions (3/15 + 10/15 = 13/15), giving 4 13/15. A candidate who adds the numerators and denominators straight across, treating 1/5 + 2/3 as (1+2)/(5+3), gets a fraction part of 3/8, giving 4 3/8. A candidate who adds the fraction parts correctly but forgets to add the second whole number gets 3 13/15. A candidate who adds the whole numbers but copies the first fraction across without ever adding 2/3 to it gets 4 1/5.
9. (c) 9/10 — Method: write the decimal over 10 using its one decimal place. Working: 0.9 = 9/10, which is already in its simplest form since 9 and 10 share no common factor. Answer: 9/10. The student's fraction, 9/100, comes from always writing the denominator as 100, regardless of how many decimal places the number actually has. 9 comes from dropping the decimal point altogether and treating 0.9 as the whole number 9. 1/9 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
10. (d) 21 — Add the parts: 5 + 3 = 8. Divide the total by the number of parts: 56 ÷ 8 = 7, so one part is worth 7 counters. Blue has 3 parts: 3 × 7 = 21. (35 is the number of red counters, using 5 parts instead of 3. 28 comes from splitting 56 counters in half instead of in the ratio 5:3. 7 is the value of one part — the number of blue counters is 3 lots of this, not just one.)
11. (a) 50 — Method: 25% is one quarter, so 25% of a quantity is the quantity divided by 4. Working: 200 ÷ 4 = 50. Answer: 50. The distractors: 25 comes from writing the percentage itself as the answer; 100 comes from halving, which is 50% not 25%; 800 comes from multiplying by 4 instead of dividing.
12. (b) 3:2 — Write both fractions over a common denominator of 4: 3/4 stays as 3/4, and 1/2 = 2/4. Comparing the numerators gives the ratio 3 : 2. Getting 2 : 3 swaps the two parts round. Getting 3 : 1 comes from using the numerator of the first fraction and the original numerator of the second fraction (1) without converting to a common denominator. Getting 2 : 1 comes from using only the denominators, 4 and 2, and simplifying those instead of the numerators.
13. (a) £1,000 — Method: find the increase, then add it to the original price; the multiplier 1.25 does both steps at once. Working: 25% is one quarter, so 25% of £800 = £800 ÷ 4 = £200, and £800 + £200 = £1,000. Answer: £1,000. The distractors: £200 is the increase on its own, not the new price; £825 comes from adding £25 to £800, treating the 25% as £25; £600 comes from taking the 25% off the price instead of adding it on.
14. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
15. (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
16. (b) 4 — Method: list the factors of each number and compare them; the highest common factor is the largest number that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 20 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20; the factors of 32 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. The numbers that appear in both lists are 1, 2 and 4, and the largest of these is 4. 2 is a common factor of 20 and 32 but not the largest one. 8 is a factor of 32 but not of 20, since 20 ÷ 8 is not a whole number. 160 is the lowest common multiple of 20 and 32, not their highest common factor. Answer: 4.
17. (a) Yes, because 120 ends in 0 — Method: a whole number divides exactly by 5 when its last digit is 5 or 0, so look at the final digit. Working: the final digit of 120 is 0, so 120 is a multiple of 5; the division confirms it, since 5 × 24 = 120 with nothing left over. Answer: Yes, because 120 ends in 0. The distractors: the option that says yes because 120 is even reaches the right conclusion from the wrong test, since being even is the test for divisibility by 2, and 14 is even but is not a multiple of 5; saying no because 5 does not divide into 12 comes from ignoring the final digit and testing only the leading digits; saying no because the digits add to 3 applies the digit-sum test, which works for 3 and for 9 but not for 5.
18. (a) 5 — Method: the number of glasses is the amount in the jug divided by the amount one glass holds. Write the mixed number as an improper fraction, then divide by multiplying by the reciprocal. Working: 3 1/3 = (3 × 3 + 1)/3 = 10/3, and 10/3 ÷ 2/3 = 10/3 × 3/2 = 30/6 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 2 comes from writing 3 1/3 as 4/3, adding the whole number to the numerator instead of multiplying it by the denominator first, and then dividing 4/3 by 2/3; 20/9 comes from multiplying by 2/3 instead of dividing by it; 5/3 comes from dividing by 2 rather than by 2/3, as though each glass held 2 litres.
19. (c) £196.35 — Method: convert both prices to pounds, multiply each by its quantity, then add the two totals. Working: 340 rolls at £0.24 each = £81.60; 85 cakes at £1.35 each = £114.75; £81.60 + £114.75 = £196.35. Answer: £196.35. £81.60 comes from working out the cost of the rolls only and forgetting to add the cost of the cakes. £114.75 comes from working out the cost of the cakes only and forgetting to add the cost of the rolls. £122.91 comes from converting 24p to £0.024 instead of £0.24, a place value error of a factor of 10 in the price of the rolls, before adding the correctly worked out cost of the cakes.
20. (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.