✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 1 : 1.875 — To write a ratio in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by the first part, 8: 8 ÷ 8 = 1 and 15 ÷ 8 = 1.875, giving 1 : 1.875. Giving 1 : 0.53 divides the wrong way round, computing 8 ÷ 15 instead of 15 ÷ 8. Giving 1.875 : 1 has the two parts of the answer swapped, which is the form n : 1, not 1 : n. Giving 8 : 1.875 divides only the second part by 8, so the first part is still 8, not 1.
2. (c) 40° — Method: the three angles of a triangle always add up to 180°, so split 180° into the number of parts shown by the ratio. Working: the ratio 2:3:4 has 2 + 3 + 4 = 9 parts, so one part is 180 ÷ 9 = 20°, and the smallest angle is 2 × 20 = 40°. So the smallest angle is 40°. Distractor 60° is the middle-sized angle, 3 parts. Distractor 80° is the largest angle, 4 parts. Distractor 20° is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 2.
3. (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (c) 0.75 — Method: a fraction means the numerator divided by the denominator, and carrying out that division gives the decimal. Working: 3 ÷ 4 is worked out by writing 3 as 3.00; 4 divides into 30 tenths 7 times with 2 tenths left over, and 4 divides into the remaining 20 hundredths exactly 5 times, giving 7 tenths and 5 hundredths. Answer: 0.75. The distractors: 0.34 comes from writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point instead of dividing; 0.7 comes from adding the numerator and the denominator to get 7 and reading that as seven tenths; 0.25 comes from converting the quarter that is left over rather than the three quarters the question asks about.
7. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (b) −4 — To subtract a negative number, add its positive equivalent: −7 − (−3) becomes −7 + 3. Work out −7 + 3 to get −4. Treating "− (−3)" as simply "−3" without flipping the sign gives the wrong working −7 − 3, which is −10. Ignoring the negative sign on −7 and just subtracting the values, 7 − 3, gives 4, which loses the sign of the starting number. Flipping the sign of both numbers, 7 + 3, gives 10, which changes more than the double negative allows. So −7 − (−3) = −4.
12. (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
13. (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
14. (d) 140 — Method: round each number to the nearest 10, then add the rounded values. Working: 89 rounds to 90 (nearest 10) and 52 rounds to 50 (nearest 10). 90 + 50 = 140. Answer: 140. 141 is the exact value of 89 + 52, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 130 comes from rounding 89 down to 80 instead of up to the nearest 10, 90. 150 comes from rounding 52 up to 60 instead of down to the nearest 10, 50.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (b) £45.90 — The cost is 18 × £3.45 = £62.10. Profit = £108 − £62.10 = £45.90. A candidate who does not borrow in the tenths column, doing 1 − 0 = 1 instead of borrowing to make 10 − 1 = 9 and so leaving the units as 8 − 2 = 6, gets £46.10. A candidate who adds the cost to the selling price instead of subtracting gets £108 + £62.10 = £170.10. A candidate who gives the cost instead of the profit gets £62.10.
18. (a) £6 — 10% of £40 is £4, and 5% of £40 is half of that, £2. Adding these gives 15% of £40 = £4 + £2 = £6. Finding only the 10% part and stopping there gives £4. Finding only the 5% part and stopping there gives £2. Multiplying 40 by 15 without dividing by 100 gives £600, which treats the percentage as if it were a whole number multiplier.
19. (a) 0 — Method: BIDMAS works through the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: 5² = 25, then 4 × 25 = 100, and finally 100 − 100 = 0. Answer: 0. The distractors: 2400 comes from working from left to right and subtracting first, giving (100 − 4) × 25 = 96 × 25 = 2400; −300 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (4 × 5)² = 20² = 400 and then 100 − 400 = −300; 60 comes from reading 5² as 5 × 2 = 10, so that 4 × 10 = 40 and 100 − 40 = 60.
20. (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.