✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 5 — Method: each index is worked out first, and subtracting a negative number is the same as adding the positive. Working: (−2)³ = (−2) × (−2) × (−2) = −8 and (−3)² = (−3) × (−3) = 9, while − (−4) becomes + 4, so the calculation becomes −8 + 9 + 4 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: −13 comes from taking (−3)² as −9, giving −8 − 9 + 4 = −13; −3 comes from reading − (−4) as − 4, giving −8 + 9 − 4 = −3; 21 comes from treating every power of a negative number as positive, so that (−2)³ is taken as 8 and the calculation becomes 8 + 9 + 4 = 21.
2. (a) 36 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the number of parts in the share asked for. Working: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, 72 ÷ 6 = 12 for one part, and the largest number is 3 parts, so 3 × 12 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 is the value of one part, which is the smallest of the three numbers rather than the largest; 24 is 2 parts, the middle number; 216 comes from multiplying 72 by 3 instead of dividing 72 by the 6 parts first.
3. (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.
4. (d) 25% — Method: to convert a decimal to a percentage, multiply by 100. Working: 0.25 × 100 = 25. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 0.25% comes from writing a percent sign after the decimal without multiplying; 2.5% comes from multiplying by 10 instead of 100; 250% comes from multiplying by 1000.
5. (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.
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) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
8. (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
9. (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
10. (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.
11. (d) 8 — Method: whatever is inside the brackets is worked out first, and the multiplication is carried out afterwards. Working: inside the brackets, −3 + 7 = 4, and then 2 × 4 = 8. Answer: 8. The distractors: 1 comes from ignoring the brackets and multiplying first, giving 2 × (−3) = −6 and then −6 + 7 = 1; −20 comes from reading −3 + 7 as −(3 + 7) = −10, so that 2 × (−10) = −20; 6 comes from working the brackets out correctly and then adding the 2 instead of multiplying by it, giving 2 + 4 = 6.
12. (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.
13. (d) £20 — 1% of £250 = £2.50, so 8% = 8 × £2.50 = £20. A candidate who misplaces the decimal point and finds 0.8% instead gets £2. A candidate who confuses 8% with 80% gets £200. A candidate who rounds 8% up to the nearby 10% gets £25.
14. (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
15. (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.
16. (d) 140 — Method: round each number to the nearest 10, then add the rounded values. Working: 89 rounds to 90 (nearest 10) and 52 rounds to 50 (nearest 10). 90 + 50 = 140. Answer: 140. 141 is the exact value of 89 + 52, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 130 comes from rounding 89 down to 80 instead of up to the nearest 10, 90. 150 comes from rounding 52 up to 60 instead of down to the nearest 10, 50.
17. (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
18. (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.
19. (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.
20. (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.