✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
2. (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.
3. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (a) £1,000 — Method: find the increase, then add it to the original price; the multiplier 1.25 does both steps at once. Working: 25% is one quarter, so 25% of £800 = £800 ÷ 4 = £200, and £800 + £200 = £1,000. Answer: £1,000. The distractors: £200 is the increase on its own, not the new price; £825 comes from adding £25 to £800, treating the 25% as £25; £600 comes from taking the 25% off the price instead of adding it on.
8. (a) 7 — Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10, so 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 7. Meera's answer of 0.07 comes from dividing 0.7 by 10 instead of by 0.1, the wrong way round. A candidate who confuses 0.1 with 0.01 multiplies by 100 instead of 10 and gets 70. A candidate who thinks dividing by a number less than 1 does not change the value gets 0.7.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (b) 5:8 — The mix has 5 parts sand and 3 parts cement, so 5 + 3 = 8 parts in total. Sand to total is 5 : 8, and since the highest common factor of 5 and 8 is 1, this is already in its simplest form. Giving 5 : 3 answers sand to cement, not sand to the total mix. Giving 3 : 8 is cement to total, the wrong part of the mix. Giving 8 : 5 has the total and the sand swapped round.
12. (a) 36 — Method: for the highest common factor, take the LOWER power of each prime that appears in both numbers. Working: for 2, the lower power is 2² (from 108); for 3, the lower power is 3² (from 72), so the highest common factor is 2² × 3² = 4 × 9 = 36. 216 comes from taking the higher power of each prime instead, 2³ × 3³ = 8 × 27 = 216, which gives the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. 108 is simply one of the two numbers, not their highest common factor. 6 comes from multiplying the primes without any powers at all, 2 × 3 = 6. Answer: 36.
13. (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
14. (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.
15. (d) £50.00 — The sale price is 85% of the original, so the original price = £42.50 ÷ 0.85 = £50.00. 15% of £42.50 is £6.375. A candidate who finds 15% of £42.50 and subtracts it from the sale price gets £42.50 − £6.375 = £36.125, which is £36.13 to the nearest penny. A candidate who adds 15% of £42.50 instead of reversing the decrease gets £42.50 + £6.375 = £48.875, which is £48.88 to the nearest penny. A candidate who divides by 0.15 instead of 0.85 gets £283.33.
16. (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.
17. (a) 1:8 — Convert 2 kg to grams: 2 kg = 2000 g. The ratio is 250 : 2000. The highest common factor of 250 and 2000 is 250. Divide both parts by 250: 250 ÷ 250 = 1 and 2000 ÷ 250 = 8, so the ratio is 1 : 8. Leaving the kilograms unconverted gives 250 : 2, which simplifies to 125 : 1 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 50 instead of 250 gives 5 : 40, which still shares a common factor of 5, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 1, grams to kilograms the wrong way round.
18. (c) 9/10 — Method: write the decimal over 10 using its one decimal place. Working: 0.9 = 9/10, which is already in its simplest form since 9 and 10 share no common factor. Answer: 9/10. The student's fraction, 9/100, comes from always writing the denominator as 100, regardless of how many decimal places the number actually has. 9 comes from dropping the decimal point altogether and treating 0.9 as the whole number 9. 1/9 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
19. (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.
20. (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.