✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
2. (d) 5 — Method: the greatest number of identical bunches is the highest common factor of the two flower totals; then divide the red roses by that number of bunches. Working: 60 = 2² × 3 × 5 and 84 = 2² × 3 × 7, so their highest common factor is 2² × 3 = 12. That means 12 bunches, and 60 ÷ 12 = 5 red roses in each. 7 is the number of white roses in each bunch, since 84 ÷ 12 = 7, not red roses. 12 is the number of bunches itself, not the number of red roses in one bunch. 20 comes from working out 60 ÷ 3 = 20, dividing by only part of the highest common factor. Answer: 5.
3. (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
4. (c) 0.07 — Each digit after the decimal point has a place value: the first digit is tenths, the second is hundredths, the third is thousandths. In 3.472, the 4 is in the tenths place and the 7 is in the hundredths place, so it is worth 0.07. Reading it as 7 ignores place value altogether, treating it as if it were a whole number. Reading it as 0.7 puts it one place too big, in the tenths place. Reading it as 0.007 puts it one place too small, in the thousandths place. The digit 7 in 3.472 is worth 0.07.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
8. (c) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
9. (a) 13/40 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.325 = 325/1000 = 13/40 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 25). Answer: 13/40. 13/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 8/25 comes from rounding 0.325 down to 0.32 before converting. 3/8 comes from recalling the learned conversion 3/8 = 0.375 and matching it to 0.325 because both are three-place decimals beginning with 3, instead of converting the decimal given.
10. (b) 0.6 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 10, then read off the decimal. Working: 3/5 = 6/10 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 2) = 0.6. Answer: 0.6. 0.35 comes from combining the digits 3 and 5 directly after the decimal point instead of converting the fraction. 0.53 comes from writing the numerator and denominator digits in the wrong order. 1.67 comes from flipping the fraction to 5/3 before converting to a decimal.
11. (a) 36 — Method: find the lowest common multiple of 6 and 9, then move up the list of common multiples until one is greater than 20. Working: the common multiples of 6 and 9 are 18, 36, 54 …. 18 is not greater than 20, so the next one, 36, is the smallest value of n that is greater than 20. 18 is the lowest common multiple itself, but it fails the 'greater than 20' condition. 54 is the common multiple after 36, one step too far. 27 is a multiple of 9 but not of 6, since 27 ÷ 6 is not a whole number. Answer: 36.
12. (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.
13. (a) 8 — To undo 'multiply by 4, then add 8', reverse the operations in reverse order: subtract 8 first, then divide by 4. 40 − 8 = 32, and 32 ÷ 4 = 8, so the number is 8. A candidate who added 8 again instead of subtracting worked out 40 + 8 = 48, then 48 ÷ 4 = 12. A candidate who divided before subtracting, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out 40 ÷ 4 = 10, then 10 − 8 = 2. A candidate who multiplied instead of dividing at the last step worked out (40 − 8) × 4 = 32 × 4 = 128.
14. (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
15. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
16. (d) 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17. — Check 51 for small prime factors: 51 ÷ 3 = 17, and both 3 and 17 are themselves prime, so 51 = 3 × 17 and 51 is not a prime number — it has factors other than 1 and itself. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 and concluding wrongly that none of them divide 51 misses that 3 does divide it exactly, so the claim that 51 is prime because it avoids 2, 3 and 5 is false. Assuming any odd number must be prime ignores that 51 = 3 × 17 is a counterexample — plenty of odd numbers are not prime. Misreading 51 as the even number 52 leads to the false claim that it is divisible by 2; 51 itself is odd, and 2 is not one of its factors. So 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17.
17. (a) 12 — List the multiples of each number: multiples of 4 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24; multiples of 6 are 6, 12, 18, 24. The lowest number that appears in both lists is 12. Picking 24, a common multiple but not the lowest one, gives an answer that is too big. Picking 6, the larger of the two original numbers rather than a common multiple, ignores that the lowest common multiple must appear in both lists. Working out the highest common factor instead of the lowest common multiple gives 2. So the lowest common multiple of 4 and 6 is 12.
18. (a) 45% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is £116 − £80 = £36, and 36 ÷ 80 = 0.45, so 0.45 × 100 = 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 36% comes from quoting the £36 increase as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 31% comes from dividing the £36 increase by the new price £116 instead of by the original £80, which gives 31% to the nearest per cent; 145% is the new price written as a percentage of the original price, which is the whole of the new price rather than the increase.
19. (b) 18 — Method: multiply the two numbers ignoring their signs, then apply the rule that a negative number multiplied by a negative number gives a positive answer. Working: 6 × 3 = 18; since both −6 and −3 are negative, the product is positive. Answer: 18. −18 comes from keeping the answer negative, as if only one of the two negative signs affects the sign of the product. −9 comes from adding the two numbers instead of multiplying them, −6 + (−3) = −9. 9 comes from adding 6 and 3 as if both numbers were positive, ignoring the negative signs entirely.
20. (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.