✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
3. (c) Ben: 2 × 3 = 6, then 6 + 6 = 12 — Multiplication has priority over addition, so 2 × 3 = 6 is worked out first, then 6 + 6 = 12 — this is Ben's method. Amy adds 6 and 2 before multiplying: 6 + 2 = 8, then 8 × 3 = 24, breaking the priority rule. Chen multiplies the wrong pair of numbers, 6 and 2, instead of 2 and 3: 6 × 2 = 12, then 12 + 3 = 15. Dev applies the right order but slips when multiplying, using 5 instead of 6 for 2 × 3, so the final step becomes 6 + 5 = 11.
4. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide. Working: 397 rounds to 400 and 21 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 400 ÷ 20 = 20. Answer: 20. The distractors: 19 comes from not estimating at all, since 397 ÷ 21 = 18.9 to 1 decimal place, which rounds to 19, while the question asks for an estimate from rounded numbers; 200 comes from dividing 400 by 2 instead of by 20, losing the place value of the rounded divisor; 2 comes from dividing the leading digits only and losing the place value of both numbers.
5. (d) 600 — Method: the number of seats is the number of rows multiplied by the number of seats in each row, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then multiply the rounded values, which is quick because a product of two multiples of ten is found by multiplying the non-zero digits and attaching the zeros. Working: 21 rounds to 20 and 29 rounds to 30; 2 × 3 = 6, and 20 and 30 carry one zero each, so two zeros follow the 6. Answer: about 600 seats. The distractors: 50 comes from adding the two rounded numbers instead of multiplying them, 20 + 30; 60 comes from multiplying 20 by the 3 of 30 and forgetting the zero in 30; 6,000 comes from attaching three zeros to 2 × 3 when 20 and 30 provide only two between them.
6. (d) 3,200,000 — 1 million = 1,000,000, so 3.2 million = 3.2 × 1,000,000 = 3,200,000. A candidate who moves the decimal point one place too many gets 32,000,000. A candidate who moves it one place too few gets 320,000. A candidate who writes the .2 as extra thousands instead of hundred-thousands gets 3,002,000.
7. (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
8. (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
9. (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
10. (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
11. (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.
12. (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
13. (c) £70 — Method: 20% of an amount is 20/100 of it; a reliable route is to find 10% by dividing by 10 and then double it. Working: 10% of £350 is £350 ÷ 10 = £35, and 20% is twice as much, £35 × 2 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £35 comes from finding 10% and stopping there; £17.50 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out £350 ÷ 20 = £17.50; £280 comes from taking 20% off the money raised rather than finding 20% of it, giving £350 ÷ 5 = £70 and then £350 − £70 = £280.
14. (b) 8:12 — Method: two ratios are equivalent when one is obtained from the other by multiplying, or dividing, both parts by the same number. Working: multiplying both parts of 2:3 by 4 gives 2 × 4 = 8 and 3 × 4 = 12, and the check runs the other way too, since the highest common factor of 8 and 12 is 4 and dividing both parts by 4 returns 2:3. Answer: 8:12. The distractors: 8:3 comes from multiplying only the first part by 4 and leaving the second part alone; 12:8 comes from multiplying both parts by 4 correctly but then writing the two parts the wrong way round; 4:5 comes from adding 2 to each part instead of multiplying, and adding the same amount to both parts changes the ratio.
15. (a) 1/5 — Work out the bracket first: 2 + 3 = 5. The reciprocal of 5 is 1/5. A candidate who forgot to take the reciprocal and just gave the value of the bracket wrote 5. A candidate who took the reciprocal but made a sign error wrote −1/5. A candidate who found the reciprocal of each number separately and added them, treating reciprocal as if it distributes over addition, worked out 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6.
16. (c) 600 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then add the rounded values. Working: 113 is nearer to 100 than to 200, so it rounds to 100; 491 is nearer to 500 than to 400, so it rounds to 500; adding those gives the estimate. Answer: 600. The distractors: 500 comes from rounding each number down to the hundred below instead of to the nearest hundred, giving 100 + 400; 700 comes from rounding each number up to the hundred above, giving 200 + 500; 604 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
17. (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
18. (b) 30 — Method: the smallest matching total is the lowest common multiple of the two pack sizes. Working: multiples of 6 are 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 …; multiples of 10 are 10, 20, 30 …. The lowest common multiple is 30. 60 comes from working out 6 × 10 = 60, the product of the pack sizes rather than their lowest common multiple. 16 comes from working out 6 + 10 = 16, which is not a common multiple at all. 2 is the highest common factor of 6 and 10, not a total of tickets. Answer: 30.
19. (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.
20. (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.