✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide. Working: 397 rounds to 400 and 21 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 400 ÷ 20 = 20. Answer: 20. The distractors: 19 comes from not estimating at all, since 397 ÷ 21 = 18.9 to 1 decimal place, which rounds to 19, while the question asks for an estimate from rounded numbers; 200 comes from dividing 400 by 2 instead of by 20, losing the place value of the rounded divisor; 2 comes from dividing the leading digits only and losing the place value of both numbers.
2. (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.
3. (b) 2.1 m — The three pieces use 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 m of wood. Remaining wood = 4.8 − 2.7 = 2.1 m. A candidate who miscounts and only subtracts 2 pieces instead of 3 gets 4.8 − 1.8 = 3.0 m. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 4.8 + 2.7 = 7.5 m. A candidate who gives the length used instead of the length remaining gets 2.7 m.
4. (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
5. (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
6. (c) 45% — Method: adding water changes the total volume but not the amount of fruit juice, so find the juice, find the new total volume, and write the first as a percentage of the second. Working: 3 × 0.6 = 1.8 litres of fruit juice; the new volume is 3 + 1 = 4 litres; 1.8 ÷ 4 = 0.45, which is 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 60% is the strength before the water goes in, and assumes that adding water leaves the strength unchanged; 15% comes from dividing the 60% by the 4 litres of mixture instead of dividing the 1.8 litres of juice by the 4 litres; 75% is the fraction of the new mixture that came out of the original jug, 3 litres out of 4, which ignores that only 60% of that 3 litres was juice.
7. (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.
8. (c) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
13. (d) £270 — Method: the £90 is a difference between two shares, so turn it into a number of parts before finding the value of one part. Working: the largest share is 3 parts and the smallest is 1 part, so the difference is 3 − 1 = 2 parts and 2 parts are worth £90; one part = £90 ÷ 2 = £45; the whole amount is 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, so 6 × £45 = £270. Answer: £270. The distractors: £540 comes from treating the £90 as the value of one part and multiplying it by the 6 parts; £180 comes from finding the £45 correctly but adding only the 1-part and 3-part shares and forgetting the middle share; £135 comes from multiplying £45 by 3 and giving the largest share instead of the total.
14. (a) 14 — Brackets first: 9 − 6 = 3. Then multiply: 3 × 3 = 9. Then add: 5 + 9 = 14. So the answer is 14. A candidate who worked out (5 + 3) × (9 − 6) = 8 × 3 = 24 added before multiplying, ignoring the priority of operations outside the bracket. A candidate who dropped the brackets and worked out 5 + 3 × 9 − 6 = 5 + 27 − 6 = 26 multiplied by the 9 itself instead of by the bracket's value of 3, losing the grouping the brackets give. A candidate who forgot to add the 5 and only worked out 3 × (9 − 6) = 3 × 3 = 9 dropped a term from the calculation.
15. (c) −5 — Method: the bracket is worked out first, then the multiplication and the division, which stand as separate parts, and the subtraction that joins them is carried out last; subtracting a negative is the same as adding. Working: (−3) + 5 = 2, so the product is 2 × (−4) = −8; the division gives (−6) ÷ 2 = −3; joining them gives −8 − (−3) = −8 + 3 = −5. Answer: −5. The distractors: −11 comes from taking away 3 instead of taking away −3, giving −8 − 3 = −11; −1 comes from working from left to right once the bracket is done, giving −8 − (−6) = −2 and then −2 ÷ 2 = −1; 11 comes from treating the first product as positive because it was worked out from a bracket, giving 8 − (−3) = 11.
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. (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
18. (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.
19. (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.
20. (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.