✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 7 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, and finally 12 − 5 = 7. Answer: 7. The distractors: −17 comes from squaring only the 2 and keeping the minus sign, giving 3 × (−4) = −12 and then −12 − 5 = −17; 31 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (3 × (−2))² = (−6)² = 36 and then 36 − 5 = 31; −3 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the multiplication, giving 3 × (4 − 5) = 3 × (−1) = −3.
3. (a) 35 — Method: 25% is 25/100, which cancels to 1/4, so finding 25% of an amount means dividing it by 4. Working: 25% = 25/100 = 1/4, and 140 ÷ 4 = 35. Answer: 35 pens. The distractors: 70 comes from halving instead of quartering, confusing 25% with 50%; 105 comes from working out the pens that are not red, which is 75% of 140, instead of the pens that are; 25 comes from ignoring the percent sign and reading the 25% as a count of 25 pens.
4. (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.
5. (c) 9 — Method: factors come in pairs that multiply to give the number, so work through the pairs in order; a factor paired with itself is counted only once. Working: the pairs are 1 × 100, 2 × 50, 4 × 25, 5 × 20 and 10 × 10. The first four pairs give eight different factors, and the last pair adds only one more, so the factors are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Answer: 9. The distractors: 10 comes from counting the pair 10 × 10 as two separate factors; 8 comes from leaving 1 out of the list, on the view that 1 is not a proper factor; 4 comes from writing 100 = 2² × 5² and multiplying the two indices together instead of adding 1 to each index first.
6. (b) 80% — Percentage = (40 ÷ 50) × 100 = 80%.
7. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
8. (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.
9. (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
10. (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.
11. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
12. (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.
13. (d) 75% — Method: change a fraction to a percentage by dividing the numerator by the denominator and multiplying by 100. Working: 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, and 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%. The distractors: 34% comes from reading the digits 3 and 4 straight off as a percentage; 0.75% comes from dividing but forgetting to multiply by 100; 133% comes from inverting the fraction and working out 4 ÷ 3 instead.
14. (a) 6 — Method: list the factors of each number and compare them. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18; the factors of 24 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24. The only option that appears in both lists is 6. 8 is a factor of 24 but not of 18. 9 is a factor of 18 but not of 24. 12 is a factor of 24 but not of 18. Answer: 6.
15. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 588 rounds to 600 (1 s.f.) and 31 rounds to 30 (1 s.f.). 600 ÷ 30 = 20. Answer: 20. 17 comes from cutting 588 down to 500, keeping the leading digit as it stands instead of rounding it up to 1 significant figure, 600, then dividing by the correctly rounded 30. 200 comes from misreading the rounded divisor 30 as 3, giving 600 ÷ 3 instead of 600 ÷ 30. 19 is the exact value of 588 ÷ 31 rounded to the nearest whole number, found without rounding the numbers first.
16. (c) 1,000 m² — Method: round each length to 1 significant figure, then use area of a rectangle = length × width on the rounded lengths. Working: 19.6 m rounds to 20 m and 48.3 m rounds to 50 m, so the estimate is 20 × 50 = 1,000 and the area is about 1,000 m². Answer: 1,000 m². The distractors: 800 m² comes from rounding 48.3 down to 40 when the digit after its first significant figure is 8 and sends it up to 50, giving 20 × 40 = 800; 140 m² is the perimeter of the rounded rectangle, 2 × 20 + 2 × 50 = 140, not its area; 70 m² comes from adding the rounded lengths, 20 + 50 = 70, instead of multiplying them.
17. (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
18. (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.
19. (d) 1:4 — Convert 1.4 l to millilitres: 1.4 l = 1400 ml. The ratio is 350 : 1400. Divide both parts by 350: 350 ÷ 350 = 1 and 1400 ÷ 350 = 4, giving 1 : 4. Misreading 1.4 l as 14 (moving the decimal point) gives 350 : 14, which simplifies to 25 : 1 — a very different, implausible ratio. Dividing by 175 instead of 350 gives 2 : 8, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 4 : 1, litres to millilitres the wrong way round.
20. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.