✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 3:2 — There are 24 green sweets and 16 orange sweets. The highest common factor of 24 and 16 is 8. Divide both numbers by 8: 24 ÷ 8 = 3 and 16 ÷ 8 = 2, so the ratio is 3 : 2. Dividing by 4 instead of 8 gives 6 : 4, which still has a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Writing green sweets to the total number of sweets, 24 : 40, simplifies to 3 : 5 — that compares green to everything, not green to orange, so it answers a different question. Swapping the order gives 2 : 3, green and orange the wrong way round.
3. (a) 5 — Method: the number of glasses is the amount in the jug divided by the amount one glass holds. Write the mixed number as an improper fraction, then divide by multiplying by the reciprocal. Working: 3 1/3 = (3 × 3 + 1)/3 = 10/3, and 10/3 ÷ 2/3 = 10/3 × 3/2 = 30/6 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 2 comes from writing 3 1/3 as 4/3, adding the whole number to the numerator instead of multiplying it by the denominator first, and then dividing 4/3 by 2/3; 20/9 comes from multiplying by 2/3 instead of dividing by it; 5/3 comes from dividing by 2 rather than by 2/3, as though each glass held 2 litres.
4. (a) 300 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 8,900 rounds to 9,000 and 29 rounds to 30; cancelling a zero from each gives 900 ÷ 3. Answer: 300. The distractors: 450 comes from rounding 29 down to 20 instead of to the nearest ten, giving 9,000 ÷ 20; 3,000 comes from rounding 29 to 3 rather than to 30, a place-value slip that divides by a number ten times too small; 307 is the exact quotient rounded to the nearest whole number, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
5. (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.
6. (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (d) 3 : 2 — Convert both amounts to pence: £3.60 = 360p and £2.40 = 240p, giving the ratio 360 : 240. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 120, to get 3 : 2. Giving 360 : 240 has not been simplified at all. Giving 2 : 3 swaps the order. Giving 36 : 24 has been divided by 10, which is a common factor but not the highest one, so it is not yet in simplest form.
10. (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
11. (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.
12. (a) 1/16 — Method: terms can only be subtracted once they share a denominator, so write every term over the largest denominator, 16, and then subtract the numerators in order from left to right. Working: 1 = 16/16, 1/2 = 8/16, 1/4 = 4/16 and 1/8 = 2/16, so the numerators give 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 − 1 = 1, over a denominator of 16. Answer: 1/16. The distractors: 1/8 comes from stopping one term early, after 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 = 2; 3/16 comes from a sign slip on the last term, adding it instead of subtracting it, which gives 2 + 1 = 3; 15/16 comes from working from the right-hand end as though the last four terms were bracketed together, so that only a single sixteenth is taken away from 1.
13. (b) 0.6 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 10, then read off the decimal. Working: 3/5 = 6/10 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 2) = 0.6. Answer: 0.6. 0.35 comes from combining the digits 3 and 5 directly after the decimal point instead of converting the fraction. 0.53 comes from writing the numerator and denominator digits in the wrong order. 1.67 comes from flipping the fraction to 5/3 before converting to a decimal.
14. (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.
15. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
16. (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.
17. (b) 80% — Percentage = (40 ÷ 50) × 100 = 80%.
18. (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.
19. (a) 45% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is £116 − £80 = £36, and 36 ÷ 80 = 0.45, so 0.45 × 100 = 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 36% comes from quoting the £36 increase as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 31% comes from dividing the £36 increase by the new price £116 instead of by the original £80, which gives 31% to the nearest per cent; 145% is the new price written as a percentage of the original price, which is the whole of the new price rather than the increase.
20. (a) 100 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 7 − 3 = 4 parts, and this is worth 40 beads. Divide to find one part: 40 ÷ 4 = 10. The total number of parts is 7 + 3 = 10, so the total number of beads is 10 × 10 = 100. (40 is just the given difference between gold and silver, not the total. 70 is the number of gold beads only, using 7 parts. 30 is the number of silver beads only, using 3 parts.)