✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
2. (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
3. (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.
4. (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.
5. (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
6. (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.
7. (c) 36 — Add the parts of the ratio: 3 + 4 = 7. Divide the total by the number of parts: 84 ÷ 7 = 12, so one part is worth 12. The smaller share has 3 parts: 3 × 12 = 36. (48 is the larger share, using 4 parts instead of 3. 42 comes from splitting 84 in half, treating the ratio as if it were 1:1. 28 comes from dividing 84 by 3 — one of the ratio numbers — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7.)
8. (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.
9. (a) 0 — Method: BIDMAS works through the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: 5² = 25, then 4 × 25 = 100, and finally 100 − 100 = 0. Answer: 0. The distractors: 2400 comes from working from left to right and subtracting first, giving (100 − 4) × 25 = 96 × 25 = 2400; −300 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (4 × 5)² = 20² = 400 and then 100 − 400 = −300; 60 comes from reading 5² as 5 × 2 = 10, so that 4 × 10 = 40 and 100 − 40 = 60.
10. (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.
11. (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
12. (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (c) 280 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 6.8 rounds to 7 because the next digit is 8, and 41 rounds to 40 because its next digit is 1, so the estimate is 7 × 40 = 280. Answer: 280. The distractors: 240 comes from cutting 6.8 down to 6 instead of rounding it up to 7, giving 6 × 40 = 240; 350 comes from rounding 41 up to 50 when the digit after its first significant figure is less than 5, giving 7 × 50 = 350; 28 comes from multiplying the leading digits only and losing the place value of the 40, which makes the estimate ten times too small.
16. (b) 11 — Method: roots and the multiplication are worked out before the addition and subtraction, and what is left is then worked through from left to right. Working: √144 = 12, √25 = 5 and 2 × 3 = 6, so the calculation becomes 12 − 6 + 5, which gives 6 + 5 = 11. Answer: 11. The distractors: 1 comes from carrying out the addition before the subtraction, giving 12 − (6 + 5) = 12 − 11 = 1; 35 comes from working from left to right with no priority, giving 12 − 2 = 10, then 10 × 3 = 30 and 30 + 5 = 35; 7 comes from combining the two roots as √(144 + 25) = √169 = 13 and then subtracting the product, giving 13 − 6 = 7.
17. (b) 8/5 — The reciprocal of a fraction a/b is b/a — swap the numerator and denominator. So the reciprocal of 5/8 is 8/5. A candidate who wrote 5/8 gave the original fraction, not its reciprocal. A candidate who worked out 1 − 5/8 = 3/8 confused 'reciprocal' with subtracting from 1. A candidate who wrote −8/5 inverted the fraction correctly but introduced an unnecessary sign change.
18. (b) 12 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 5 − 2 = 3 parts, and this is worth 18. Divide to find one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Cats have 2 parts: 2 × 6 = 12. (30 is the number of dogs, using 5 parts instead of 2. 6 is the value of one part — the number of cats is 2 lots of this, not just one. 9 comes from dividing 18 by 2 and stopping there, instead of dividing by the difference in parts, 3, and then multiplying by 2.)
19. (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.
20. (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.