✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 9/20 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.45 = 45/100 = 9/20 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 5). Answer: 9/20. 9/100 comes from dividing only the numerator by 5 and leaving the denominator as 100. 9/2 comes from writing the decimal over 10 instead of 100, as if there were only one decimal place, then simplifying 45/10. 9/200 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places, then simplifying 45/1000.
2. (b) 5 — Method: list the factors of each number and pick the largest value that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15; the factors of 25 are 1, 5 and 25. The values in both lists are 1 and 5, and the larger of those is 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 3 comes from choosing a factor of 15 without checking that it also divides 25; 15 comes from assuming that the smaller of the two numbers is always a factor of the larger one; 75 is the lowest common multiple of 15 and 25, given by taking the highest power of each prime instead of the lowest.
3. (c) 0.36 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 100, then read off the decimal. Working: 9/25 = 36/100 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 4) = 0.36. Answer: 0.36. 2.8 comes from flipping the fraction and dividing the denominator by the numerator instead: 25 ÷ 9 = 2.77…, rounded to 2.8. 0.925 comes from writing the digits of the numerator and denominator directly after the decimal point without scaling the fraction. 0.9 comes from writing the numerator straight after the decimal point, as if the denominator were 10 rather than 25.
4. (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
5. (b) 4:9 — 4 : 9 has no common factor other than 1, so it is already in its simplest form. 6 : 8 can be divided by 2 to give 3 : 4, so it is not simplest. 10 : 15 can be divided by 5 to give 2 : 3, so it is not simplest. 7 : 14 can be divided by 7 to give 1 : 2, so it is not simplest.
6. (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.
7. (a) 360 — The inverse of ÷ 15 is × 15, so the missing number is 24 × 15 = 360. Subtracting instead of multiplying gives 24 − 15 = 9. Dividing by 15 again instead of multiplying gives 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Adding instead of multiplying gives 24 + 15 = 39.
8. (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (c) 600 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then add the rounded values. Working: 113 is nearer to 100 than to 200, so it rounds to 100; 491 is nearer to 500 than to 400, so it rounds to 500; adding those gives the estimate. Answer: 600. The distractors: 500 comes from rounding each number down to the hundred below instead of to the nearest hundred, giving 100 + 400; 700 comes from rounding each number up to the hundred above, giving 200 + 500; 604 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
13. (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.
14. (a) £20,000 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the profit by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the partner asked about. Working: 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 parts, £48,000 ÷ 12 = £4,000 for one part, and that partner has 5 parts, so 5 × £4,000 = £20,000. Answer: £20,000. The distractors: £4,000 is the value of one part; £12,000 is the 3-part share; £16,000 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by assuming the biggest share must go with the number written last in the ratio.
15. (d) 17 — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, then 20 − 4 = 16, then 16 + 1 = 17. Stopping after the subtraction and forgetting to add the final 1 leaves 16. Adding the 4 and the 1 together before subtracting gives 4 + 1 = 5, then 20 − 5 = 15 — the subtraction should use the 4 from the division, not a combined total. Working strictly left to right without giving division priority gives 20 − 8 = 12, then 12 ÷ 2 = 6, then 6 + 1 = 7.
16. (b) 8:12 — Method: two ratios are equivalent when one is obtained from the other by multiplying, or dividing, both parts by the same number. Working: multiplying both parts of 2:3 by 4 gives 2 × 4 = 8 and 3 × 4 = 12, and the check runs the other way too, since the highest common factor of 8 and 12 is 4 and dividing both parts by 4 returns 2:3. Answer: 8:12. The distractors: 8:3 comes from multiplying only the first part by 4 and leaving the second part alone; 12:8 comes from multiplying both parts by 4 correctly but then writing the two parts the wrong way round; 4:5 comes from adding 2 to each part instead of multiplying, and adding the same amount to both parts changes the ratio.
17. (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.
18. (a) 120 — For the lowest common multiple, take each prime that appears in either factorisation, raised to the higher power. In 2³ × 3 and 2² × 3 × 5, the prime 2 appears with power 3 in one and power 2 in the other — take the higher, 2³; the prime 3 appears with the same power in both, 3¹; and the prime 5 appears only in the second factorisation, so use 5¹. Multiplying these, 2³ × 3 × 5, gives 120. Taking the lower power of 2 instead of the higher, and leaving out 5 altogether, gives the highest common factor, 12, instead. Multiplying the two original numbers together, 24 × 60, gives 1440, which double-counts every shared prime factor. Assuming the lowest common multiple is simply the larger of the two numbers gives 60, but 60 is not a multiple of 24 — 60 ÷ 24 does not divide exactly. So the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60 is 120.
19. (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.
20. (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.