✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
3. (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
4. (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
5. (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
6. (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.
7. (d) 17 — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, then 20 − 4 = 16, then 16 + 1 = 17. Stopping after the subtraction and forgetting to add the final 1 leaves 16. Adding the 4 and the 1 together before subtracting gives 4 + 1 = 5, then 20 − 5 = 15 — the subtraction should use the 4 from the division, not a combined total. Working strictly left to right without giving division priority gives 20 − 8 = 12, then 12 ÷ 2 = 6, then 6 + 1 = 7.
8. (d) 3:8 — Convert 2 hours to minutes: 2 hours = 120 minutes. The ratio is 45 : 120. The highest common factor of 45 and 120 is 15. Divide both parts by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3 and 120 ÷ 15 = 8, giving 3 : 8. Leaving the hours unconverted gives 45 : 2 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 5 instead of 15 gives 9 : 24, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 3, hours to minutes instead of minutes to hours.
9. (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.
10. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
11. (b) 3.5 — Method: work out each percentage of its number separately, then subtract the smaller result from the larger one. Working: 45% of 70 = 31.5, and 35% of 80 = 28, so the difference is 31.5 − 28 = 3.5. Answer: 3.5. 11.5 comes from pairing the percentages with the wrong numbers, working out 35% of 70 = 24.5 and 45% of 80 = 36, and finding their difference. 59.5 comes from adding the two correct results, 31.5 + 28, instead of subtracting them. 10 comes from simply subtracting the two percentages themselves, 45 − 35, without applying them to the numbers at all.
12. (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.
13. (a) 9:11 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18, and the factors of 22 are 1, 2, 11 and 22, so the highest common factor is 2; 18 ÷ 2 = 9 and 22 ÷ 2 = 11. Answer: 9:11. The distractors: 11:9 comes from dividing both parts correctly but writing them the wrong way round, so it describes 22 to 18 rather than 18 to 22; 9:22 comes from dividing only the first part by 2 and leaving the second part untouched; 9:13 comes from subtracting 9 from each part instead of dividing, since 18 − 9 = 9 and 22 − 9 = 13, and subtracting the same amount from both parts does not give an equivalent ratio.
14. (c) 0.36 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 100, then read off the decimal. Working: 9/25 = 36/100 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 4) = 0.36. Answer: 0.36. 2.8 comes from flipping the fraction and dividing the denominator by the numerator instead: 25 ÷ 9 = 2.77…, rounded to 2.8. 0.925 comes from writing the digits of the numerator and denominator directly after the decimal point without scaling the fraction. 0.9 comes from writing the numerator straight after the decimal point, as if the denominator were 10 rather than 25.
15. (a) 360 — The inverse of ÷ 15 is × 15, so the missing number is 24 × 15 = 360. Subtracting instead of multiplying gives 24 − 15 = 9. Dividing by 15 again instead of multiplying gives 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Adding instead of multiplying gives 24 + 15 = 39.
16. (c) 20% — Method: percentage increase = (increase ÷ original) × 100. Working: the increase is 54 − 45 = 9, and 9 ÷ 45 = 0.2, so the percentage increase is 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 9% comes from writing the actual increase as a percentage; 16.7% comes from dividing by the new value 54 instead of the original 45; 120% is the multiplier 1.2 written as a change rather than the change itself.
17. (a) 3200 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 37 rounds to 40 (the digit after the first, 7, rounds the 3 up to 4), and 84 rounds to 80, so the estimate is 40 × 80 = 3200. 2400 comes from rounding 37 down to 30, keeping the first digit as it is instead of letting the 7 round it up, giving 30 × 80 = 2400. 3108 comes from multiplying the exact numbers, 37 × 84, without rounding either of them first. 120 comes from adding the rounded numbers, 40 + 80 = 120, instead of multiplying them. Answer: 3200.
18. (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
19. (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.
20. (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.