✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
2. (a) 15 : 12 — Multiply both parts of the ratio 5 : 4 by the same number, 3, to get an equivalent ratio: 5 × 3 = 15 and 4 × 3 = 12, giving 15 : 12. Giving 15 : 16 multiplies the two parts by different scale factors (×3 and ×4), which changes the ratio. Giving 9 : 8 adds 4 to each part instead of multiplying, which also changes the ratio. Giving 4 : 5 swaps the order of the two parts.
3. (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.
4. (d) 2:3 — The highest common factor of 20 and 30 is 10. Divide both parts of the ratio by 10: 20 ÷ 10 = 2 and 30 ÷ 10 = 3, so 20 : 30 = 2 : 3. Dividing by 5 instead of the highest common factor gives 4 : 6, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Dividing only the first part by 10 and leaving the second part unchanged gives 2 : 30, which is not equivalent to the original ratio. Swapping the order of the two parts gives 3 : 2, the ratio the wrong way round.
5. (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
6. (c) 6 — 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Ignoring the brackets and working left to right gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18, then 18 × 3 = 54. Multiplying by the bracket instead of dividing by it gives 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 × 6 = 216. Dividing by only the 2 inside the bracket, and ignoring the × 3, gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18.
7. (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
8. (a) 0.35, 3/8, 0.4 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so all three values can be compared directly. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, so the three values are 0.35, 0.375 and 0.4. In order from smallest to largest: 0.35, 3/8 (0.375), 0.4. Answer: 0.35, 3/8, 0.4. "3/8, 0.35, 0.4" comes from assuming a fraction must be smaller than any decimal, without converting it first. "0.4, 3/8, 0.35" comes from writing the numbers in reverse order. "0.35, 0.4, 3/8" comes from converting 3/8 by flipping it to 8/3, making it seem larger than both decimals.
9. (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
14. (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.
15. (a) 75% — Method: to express one quantity as a percentage of another, divide the part by the whole and multiply by 100. Working: 18 ÷ 24 = 0.75, and 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%. The distractors: 25% is the percentage she got wrong, 6 out of 24; 133% comes from dividing the whole by the part, 24 ÷ 18; 18% comes from writing the number of correct answers with a percent sign.
16. (a) 23 — Division undoes multiplication, so the missing number is 391 ÷ 17 = 23. Writing down 17 repeats the number already given instead of solving for the missing one. Subtracting instead of dividing gives 391 − 17 = 374. Multiplying instead of dividing gives 391 × 17 = 6647.
17. (b) £220 — Method: round each ticket price to the nearest £5, multiply each rounded price by the number of tickets, then add the two totals. Working: the adult price £38.50 rounds to £40, and 4 × £40 = £160; the child price £19.75 rounds to £20, and 3 × £20 = £60; £160 + £60 = £220. Answer: £220. £213.25 is the exact total cost, found without rounding the prices first, so it is not an estimate. £160 comes from including the cost of the adult tickets only and forgetting the three children's tickets. £200 comes from swapping the two ticket quantities, using 3 adults and 4 children instead of 4 adults and 3 children.
18. (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
19. (a) 7/8 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.875 has three digits after the point, so it is 875 thousandths and can be written as 875/1000; the highest common factor of 875 and 1000 is 125, and 875 ÷ 125 = 7 with 1000 ÷ 125 = 8. Answer: 7/8. The distractors: 8/7 comes from cancelling correctly but writing the two parts the wrong way round; 9/10 comes from rounding 0.875 to one decimal place as 0.9 before converting; 7/80 comes from counting four decimal places instead of three and using a denominator of 10000, giving 875/10000.
20. (d) 1:4 — Convert 1.4 l to millilitres: 1.4 l = 1400 ml. The ratio is 350 : 1400. Divide both parts by 350: 350 ÷ 350 = 1 and 1400 ÷ 350 = 4, giving 1 : 4. Misreading 1.4 l as 14 (moving the decimal point) gives 350 : 14, which simplifies to 25 : 1 — a very different, implausible ratio. Dividing by 175 instead of 350 gives 2 : 8, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 4 : 1, litres to millilitres the wrong way round.