✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
2. (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.
3. (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
4. (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
5. (d) 2:3:5 — The highest common factor of 12, 18 and 30 is 6. Divide every part by 6: 12 ÷ 6 = 2, 18 ÷ 6 = 3, 30 ÷ 6 = 5, giving 2 : 3 : 5. Dividing by 2 instead of 6 gives 6 : 9 : 15, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Dividing by 3 instead of 6 gives 4 : 6 : 10, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified either. Swapping the first two parts gives 3 : 2 : 5, the parts in the wrong order.
6. (a) −22 — Method: both multiplications are carried out before the addition, and a positive multiplied by a negative is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12 and 2 × (−5) = −10, so the calculation becomes −12 + (−10) = −22. Answer: −22. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus signs and working out 3 × 4 + 2 × 5 = 22; 50 comes from working from left to right with no priority at all, giving −12 + 2 = −10 and then −10 × (−5) = 50; −2 comes from taking 2 × (−5) as +10, so that −12 + 10 = −2.
7. (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.
8. (a) 3:2 — There are 24 green sweets and 16 orange sweets. The highest common factor of 24 and 16 is 8. Divide both numbers by 8: 24 ÷ 8 = 3 and 16 ÷ 8 = 2, so the ratio is 3 : 2. Dividing by 4 instead of 8 gives 6 : 4, which still has a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Writing green sweets to the total number of sweets, 24 : 40, simplifies to 3 : 5 — that compares green to everything, not green to orange, so it answers a different question. Swapping the order gives 2 : 3, green and orange the wrong way round.
9. (c) 87 litres — Work out how much water is drained: 8 × 6 = 48 litres. Subtract this from the starting amount: 120 − 48 = 72 litres. Then add the 15 litres from the hose: 72 + 15 = 87 litres. Subtracting the 15 litres instead of adding it, as though the hose also removed water, gives 120 − 48 − 15 = 57 litres. Stopping after the drain step, without adding the hose water back in, leaves the working at 72 litres. Adding the rate and the time instead of multiplying them, 8 + 6 = 14 litres drained, and then working from there gives 120 − 14 + 15 = 121 litres. So 87 litres of water is left in the tank.
10. (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
11. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
12. (c) £80 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/9 of a price means dividing that price by 9. Working: £720 ÷ 9 = £80. Answer: £80. The distractors: £6480 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving £720 × 9 = £6480; £640 comes from working out what is left of the £720 once the case is paid for, £720 − £80, instead of the cost of the case itself; £72 comes from dividing by 10 instead of 9, treating one ninth as one tenth.
13. (b) 14 — Method: the greatest number of identical rows is the highest common factor of the two bulb totals, found by taking every prime factor the two totals share. Working: 42 = 2 × 3 × 7 and 56 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 7, so the prime factors common to both are 2 and 7, giving a highest common factor of 2 × 7 = 14. 2 comes from taking only the common factor 2 and forgetting the common factor 7. 7 comes from taking only the common factor 7 and forgetting the common factor 2. 168 is the lowest common multiple of 42 and 56, not their highest common factor. Answer: 14.
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. (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.
16. (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.
17. (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
18. (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.
19. (b) 6 — List the factors of each number: the factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12; the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18. The common factors are 1, 2, 3 and 6, and the highest of these is 6. Picking 2, a common factor but not the largest, gives an answer that is too small. Picking 3, also a common factor but still not the largest, gives another answer that is too small. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 36. So the highest common factor of 12 and 18 is 6.
20. (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.