✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
3. (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
4. (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.
5. (c) £7.25 — Find the total cost of the books first: 3 × 4.25 = 12.75, so the books cost £12.75 in total. Subtract this from the £20 note: 20.00 − 12.75 = 7.25, so the change is £7.25. Stopping after finding the cost and not subtracting it from £20 gives £12.75, which is the amount spent, not the change. Borrowing correctly in the pence column but forgetting to reduce the pounds column by 1 gives £8.25 instead of £7.25. Multiplying 3 × 4.25 as 12.25 instead of 12.75, a multiplication slip, makes the change come out £0.50 too high, at £7.75. So Jack receives £7.25 change.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (b) 14 — Method: the greatest number of identical rows is the highest common factor of the two bulb totals, found by taking every prime factor the two totals share. Working: 42 = 2 × 3 × 7 and 56 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 7, so the prime factors common to both are 2 and 7, giving a highest common factor of 2 × 7 = 14. 2 comes from taking only the common factor 2 and forgetting the common factor 7. 7 comes from taking only the common factor 7 and forgetting the common factor 2. 168 is the lowest common multiple of 42 and 56, not their highest common factor. Answer: 14.
9. (b) £52,000 — Method: convert 130% to a decimal multiplier and multiply it by last year's profit. Working: 130% = 1.3, so this year's profit is £40,000 × 1.3 = £52,000. Answer: £52,000. £12,000 comes from using only the extra 30% (130% − 100%) and forgetting to include the original 100%, £40,000 × 0.3 = £12,000. £40,130 comes from simply adding 130 onto £40,000, treating the percentage as an amount of money rather than a multiplier. £5,200 comes from misreading 130% as 13%, giving £40,000 × 0.13 = £5,200.
10. (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.
11. (b) £20 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then take the parts belonging to the person asked about. Working: 1 + 2 = 3 parts, £60 ÷ 3 = £20 for one part, and Isla has 1 part. Answer: £20. The distractors: £40 is the 2-part share, which belongs to her brother; £30 comes from reading 1:2 as one part out of two and halving the £60; £120 comes from multiplying the £60 by 2 instead of dividing it into 3 parts.
12. (c) 1,000 m² — Method: round each length to 1 significant figure, then use area of a rectangle = length × width on the rounded lengths. Working: 19.6 m rounds to 20 m and 48.3 m rounds to 50 m, so the estimate is 20 × 50 = 1,000 and the area is about 1,000 m². Answer: 1,000 m². The distractors: 800 m² comes from rounding 48.3 down to 40 when the digit after its first significant figure is 8 and sends it up to 50, giving 20 × 40 = 800; 140 m² is the perimeter of the rounded rectangle, 2 × 20 + 2 × 50 = 140, not its area; 70 m² comes from adding the rounded lengths, 20 + 50 = 70, instead of multiplying them.
13. (b) 11 — Method: roots and the multiplication are worked out before the addition and subtraction, and what is left is then worked through from left to right. Working: √144 = 12, √25 = 5 and 2 × 3 = 6, so the calculation becomes 12 − 6 + 5, which gives 6 + 5 = 11. Answer: 11. The distractors: 1 comes from carrying out the addition before the subtraction, giving 12 − (6 + 5) = 12 − 11 = 1; 35 comes from working from left to right with no priority, giving 12 − 2 = 10, then 10 × 3 = 30 and 30 + 5 = 35; 7 comes from combining the two roots as √(144 + 25) = √169 = 13 and then subtracting the product, giving 13 − 6 = 7.
14. (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
15. (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (c) 280 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 6.8 rounds to 7 because the next digit is 8, and 41 rounds to 40 because its next digit is 1, so the estimate is 7 × 40 = 280. Answer: 280. The distractors: 240 comes from cutting 6.8 down to 6 instead of rounding it up to 7, giving 6 × 40 = 240; 350 comes from rounding 41 up to 50 when the digit after its first significant figure is less than 5, giving 7 × 50 = 350; 28 comes from multiplying the leading digits only and losing the place value of the 40, which makes the estimate ten times too small.
19. (c) £70 — Method: 20% of an amount is 20/100 of it; a reliable route is to find 10% by dividing by 10 and then double it. Working: 10% of £350 is £350 ÷ 10 = £35, and 20% is twice as much, £35 × 2 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £35 comes from finding 10% and stopping there; £17.50 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out £350 ÷ 20 = £17.50; £280 comes from taking 20% off the money raised rather than finding 20% of it, giving £350 ÷ 5 = £70 and then £350 − £70 = £280.
20. (d) 50 g — Method: the milk is 4 parts of the ratio, so use the milk to find the value of one part, then read off the chocolate, which is 1 part. Working: one part = 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and the chocolate is one part. Answer: 50 g. The distractors: 40 g comes from treating the 200 g as the total mass of the mixture and splitting it into 1 + 4 = 5 parts; 250 g is the total mass of the finished mixture, the 200 g of milk plus the chocolate, rather than the chocolate on its own; 800 g comes from multiplying 200 by 4 instead of dividing, which scales the milk up rather than down to the chocolate.