✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
2. (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.
3. (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
4. (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
5. (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
6. (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.
7. (b) £50 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the largest share. Working: 3 + 4 + 5 = 12 parts, £120 ÷ 12 = £10 for one part, and the largest share is 5 parts, so 5 × £10 = £50. Answer: £50. The distractors: £10 is the value of one part only; £30 is the 3-part share, which is the smallest one; £40 is the 4-part share, the middle one.
8. (c) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
9. (d) 7:15 — Method: write the two parts in the order asked for, red first, then divide both parts by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 7 are 1 and 7, and the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15, so the only common factor is 1; dividing both parts by 1 leaves both counts unchanged. Answer: 7:15, which is already in its simplest form. The distractors: 15:7 is the ratio of blue to red, the reverse of the order the question asks for; 7:5 comes from cancelling the digit 1 out of 15, which is not a division by a common factor; 1:2 comes from dividing 15 by 7, rounding the result to 2 and writing the ratio as 1 to 2, but 7 is not a factor of 15 so that division is not exact.
10. (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
11. (b) 5 — Method: list the factors of each number and pick the largest value that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 15 are 1, 3, 5 and 15; the factors of 25 are 1, 5 and 25. The values in both lists are 1 and 5, and the larger of those is 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 3 comes from choosing a factor of 15 without checking that it also divides 25; 15 comes from assuming that the smaller of the two numbers is always a factor of the larger one; 75 is the lowest common multiple of 15 and 25, given by taking the highest power of each prime instead of the lowest.
12. (c) 0.94 — Method: a fraction is written as a decimal by making the denominator a power of ten, because the decimal places record tenths, hundredths and thousandths. Working: 50 × 2 = 100, so the numerator must also be multiplied by 2, giving 47 × 2 = 94 and the equivalent fraction 94/100; 94 hundredths is written with two digits after the decimal point. Answer: 0.94. The distractors: 0.47 comes from treating the denominator as though it were already 100 and writing the digits of the numerator straight after the point; 4.7 comes from dividing 47 by 10 instead of by 50; 0.094 comes from multiplying the denominator by 20 to reach 1000 but the numerator by only 2, giving 94/1000.
13. (c) 450 g — Method: use the amount of butter given to find the value of one part of the ratio, then find the mass of flour, and finally add flour and butter to get the total. Working: 180 g of butter is 2 parts, so one part is 180 ÷ 2 = 90 g. The flour is 3 parts, so 3 × 90 = 270 g, and the total mass is 270 + 180 = 450 g. So the baker can make 450 g of pastry. Distractor 270 g is only the mass of flour, forgetting to add the butter back on. Distractor 300 g comes from treating the 180 g as 3 parts instead of 2, swapping which ratio number matches the butter. Distractor 540 g comes from multiplying 180 by 3 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
18. (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
19. (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.
20. (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.