✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (b) 364 — Divide in stages using multiples of 12. 12 × 300 = 3600, leaving a remainder of 4368 − 3600 = 768. Then 12 × 64 = 768, so 4368 ÷ 12 = 300 + 64 = 364. Placing the decimal point as though dividing 436.8 by 12 gives 36.4. Transposing the last two digits of 364 gives 346. Working out 768 ÷ 12 as 4 instead of 64, losing the tens digit, and adding 300 + 4 gives 304. So 4368 ÷ 12 = 364.
5. (c) 200 students — Method: find the percentage who have a brother or a sister, taking care that the students with both are not counted twice, then take that percentage from 100% and apply the result to the 400 students. Working: 25% + 40% = 65%, but the 15% with both has been counted in each of those figures, so 65% − 15% = 50% have a brother or a sister; that leaves 100% − 50% = 50%, and 50% of 400 = 200. Answer: 200 students. The distractors: 260 students is 65% of 400, the number with a brother or a sister when the 15% overlap is counted twice; 140 students comes from taking that same uncorrected 65% away from the 400; 300 students comes from subtracting only the 25% with a brother and ignoring the sisters altogether.
6. (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
7. (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.
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) 10 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the subtraction. Working: 4 × 2 = 8, so the calculation becomes 18 − 8 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 28 comes from working from left to right, giving (18 − 4) × 2 = 14 × 2 = 28; −10 comes from subtracting the 18 from the 8 rather than the 8 from the 18, giving 8 − 18 = −10; 12 comes from reading 4 × 2 as 4 + 2 = 6 and then working out 18 − 6 = 12.
10. (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.
11. (b) 10 — First find 1/4 of 80, which is 20, then find 1/2 of that: 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Adding the two fractions together instead of applying them one after the other, 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4, and finding 3/4 of 80 gives 60. Finding 1/4 of 80 = 20 correctly but stopping before applying the second fraction leaves 20 as the final answer. Finding 1/2 of 80 = 40 first but forgetting to then find 1/4 of that leaves 40 as the final answer.
12. (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
13. (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.
14. (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.
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) 19 — 2² = 4, then 4 × 4 = 16, then 3 + 16 = 19. Adding before multiplying gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 4 = 28 — multiplication comes before addition. Squaring the product instead of just the 2 gives 4 × 2 = 8, then 8² = 64, then 3 + 64 = 67. Working strictly left to right throughout gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 2 = 14, then 14² = 196.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (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.
20. (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor, 2x: 4x ÷ 2x = 2 and 6x ÷ 2x = 3, giving 2 : 3. Writing 4 : 6 has not been simplified at all. Writing 2x : 3x has cancelled the common factor of 2 but left the x in, so it is not written as a ratio of whole numbers. Writing 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round.