✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) 19 — 2² = 4, then 4 × 4 = 16, then 3 + 16 = 19. Adding before multiplying gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 4 = 28 — multiplication comes before addition. Squaring the product instead of just the 2 gives 4 × 2 = 8, then 8² = 64, then 3 + 64 = 67. Working strictly left to right throughout gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 2 = 14, then 14² = 196.
2. (b) 20 — Method: check a calculator answer by replacing the percentage with a simple fraction — 25% is one quarter, so the calculation becomes a division by 4. Working: 80 ÷ 4 = 20, and the calculator answer of 320 is 80 × 4, which is what happens when the amount is multiplied by 4 instead of divided by it; a quarter of an amount must be smaller than the amount. Answer: 20. The distractors: 25 comes from writing the percentage itself down as the answer; 16 comes from dividing by 5 instead of by 4, which finds 20% rather than 25%; 3.2 comes from working out 80 ÷ 25 instead of a quarter of 80.
3. (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.
4. (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
5. (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.
6. (a) 20 cm — Method: match the measurement you are given to its own part of the ratio, use it to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the measurement asked for. Working: the length is the second measurement listed, so it matches 4 parts and one part = 16 ÷ 4 = 4 cm; the height is 5 parts, so 5 × 4 = 20. Answer: 20 cm. The distractors: 12 cm is the width, which is the 3-part measurement; 4 cm is the value of one part only; 80 cm comes from multiplying the 16 cm by 5 without first dividing by the 4 parts the length is worth.
7. (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
8. (b) 9/4 — Method: write the whole part as a fraction with the same denominator, then add the fraction part to it. Working: there are 4 quarters in 1 whole, so 2 wholes are 2 × 4 = 8 quarters; adding the 1 quarter that is already there gives 8 + 1 = 9 quarters over a denominator of 4. Answer: 9/4. The distractors: 3/4 comes from adding the whole number to the numerator, as 2 + 1, instead of multiplying it by the denominator first; 7/4 comes from multiplying correctly but then subtracting the numerator, as 2 × 4 − 1; 5/4 comes from multiplying the numerator by the denominator instead of the whole number, as 1 × 4 + 1.
9. (b) 3:2 — Write both fractions over a common denominator of 4: 3/4 stays as 3/4, and 1/2 = 2/4. Comparing the numerators gives the ratio 3 : 2. Getting 2 : 3 swaps the two parts round. Getting 3 : 1 comes from using the numerator of the first fraction and the original numerator of the second fraction (1) without converting to a common denominator. Getting 2 : 1 comes from using only the denominators, 4 and 2, and simplifying those instead of the numerators.
10. (b) 1 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index before the subtraction, and a negative number multiplied by itself gives a positive result. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so the calculation becomes 4 − 3 = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: −7 comes from squaring only the 2 and leaving the minus sign outside the index, giving −(2²) − 3 = −4 − 3 = −7; −1 comes from subtracting the square from 3 instead of 3 from the square, giving 3 − 4 = −1; 25 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the index, giving (−2 − 3)² = (−5)² = 25.
11. (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.
12. (c) 2/3 — Method: fractions with the same denominator are added by adding the numerators and leaving the denominator alone, because the parts are already the same size. Working: 1/3 + 1/3 has numerators 1 + 1 = 2 and the denominator stays as 3, giving 2/3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 2/6 comes from adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 1 + 1 over 3 + 3; 2/9 comes from adding the numerators but multiplying the denominators, 1 + 1 over 3 × 3; 1/9 comes from multiplying throughout instead of adding, 1 × 1 over 3 × 3.
13. (d) 7/20 — 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: 0.35 has two digits after the point, so it is 35 hundredths and can be written as 35/100; the highest common factor of 35 and 100 is 5, and 35 ÷ 5 = 7 with 100 ÷ 5 = 20. Answer: 7/20. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 7/25 comes from dividing the numerator by 5 but the denominator by 4, using a different factor on the top and on the bottom; 35/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (b) −2 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12, so the calculation becomes −12 + 10 = −2. Answer: −2. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 3 × 4 + 10 = 22; −42 comes from adding before multiplying, giving (4 + 10) × (−3) = 14 × (−3) = −42; −22 comes from adding 12 and 10 and then writing a minus sign in front of the total, instead of moving 10 places up from −12.
19. (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
20. (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.