✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
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) 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.
4. (c) 87 litres — Work out how much water is drained: 8 × 6 = 48 litres. Subtract this from the starting amount: 120 − 48 = 72 litres. Then add the 15 litres from the hose: 72 + 15 = 87 litres. Subtracting the 15 litres instead of adding it, as though the hose also removed water, gives 120 − 48 − 15 = 57 litres. Stopping after the drain step, without adding the hose water back in, leaves the working at 72 litres. Adding the rate and the time instead of multiplying them, 8 + 6 = 14 litres drained, and then working from there gives 120 − 14 + 15 = 121 litres. So 87 litres of water is left in the tank.
5. (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
6. (a) 3:2 — There are 24 green sweets and 16 orange sweets. The highest common factor of 24 and 16 is 8. Divide both numbers by 8: 24 ÷ 8 = 3 and 16 ÷ 8 = 2, so the ratio is 3 : 2. Dividing by 4 instead of 8 gives 6 : 4, which still has a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Writing green sweets to the total number of sweets, 24 : 40, simplifies to 3 : 5 — that compares green to everything, not green to orange, so it answers a different question. Swapping the order gives 2 : 3, green and orange the wrong way round.
7. (a) 9/20 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.45 = 45/100 = 9/20 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 5). Answer: 9/20. 9/100 comes from dividing only the numerator by 5 and leaving the denominator as 100. 9/2 comes from writing the decimal over 10 instead of 100, as if there were only one decimal place, then simplifying 45/10. 9/200 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places, then simplifying 45/1000.
8. (b) 4:9 — 4 : 9 has no common factor other than 1, so it is already in its simplest form. 6 : 8 can be divided by 2 to give 3 : 4, so it is not simplest. 10 : 15 can be divided by 5 to give 2 : 3, so it is not simplest. 7 : 14 can be divided by 7 to give 1 : 2, so it is not simplest.
9. (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.
10. (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
11. (c) 2/3 — Method: fractions with the same denominator are added by adding the numerators and leaving the denominator alone, because the parts are already the same size. Working: 1/3 + 1/3 has numerators 1 + 1 = 2 and the denominator stays as 3, giving 2/3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 2/6 comes from adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 1 + 1 over 3 + 3; 2/9 comes from adding the numerators but multiplying the denominators, 1 + 1 over 3 × 3; 1/9 comes from multiplying throughout instead of adding, 1 × 1 over 3 × 3.
12. (a) 14 — Brackets first: 9 − 6 = 3. Then multiply: 3 × 3 = 9. Then add: 5 + 9 = 14. So the answer is 14. A candidate who worked out (5 + 3) × (9 − 6) = 8 × 3 = 24 added before multiplying, ignoring the priority of operations outside the bracket. A candidate who dropped the brackets and worked out 5 + 3 × 9 − 6 = 5 + 27 − 6 = 26 multiplied by the 9 itself instead of by the bracket's value of 3, losing the grouping the brackets give. A candidate who forgot to add the 5 and only worked out 3 × (9 − 6) = 3 × 3 = 9 dropped a term from the calculation.
13. (c) 40 cm — Method: split the total length into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the value of the shorter share. Working: the ratio 4:5 has 4 + 5 = 9 parts, so one part is 90 ÷ 9 = 10 cm, and the shorter piece is 4 × 10 = 40 cm. So the shorter piece is 40 cm. Distractor 50 cm is the length of the LONGER piece, not the shorter one. Distractor 45 cm comes from splitting the ribbon into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 10 cm is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
14. (d) 3 : 7 — There are 9 apples and 21 oranges, giving the ratio 9 : 21. The highest common factor of 9 and 21 is 3: 9 ÷ 3 = 3 and 21 ÷ 3 = 7, so the simplest form is 3 : 7. Giving 9 : 21 has not been simplified. Giving 7 : 3 swaps the order, comparing oranges to apples instead of apples to oranges. Giving 9 : 12 compares the number of apples with the difference between the two amounts (21 − 9 = 12), not with the number of oranges.
15. (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.
16. (b) 9/4 — Method: write the whole part as a fraction with the same denominator, then add the fraction part to it. Working: there are 4 quarters in 1 whole, so 2 wholes are 2 × 4 = 8 quarters; adding the 1 quarter that is already there gives 8 + 1 = 9 quarters over a denominator of 4. Answer: 9/4. The distractors: 3/4 comes from adding the whole number to the numerator, as 2 + 1, instead of multiplying it by the denominator first; 7/4 comes from multiplying correctly but then subtracting the numerator, as 2 × 4 − 1; 5/4 comes from multiplying the numerator by the denominator instead of the whole number, as 1 × 4 + 1.
17. (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.
18. (d) 50 g — Method: the milk is 4 parts of the ratio, so use the milk to find the value of one part, then read off the chocolate, which is 1 part. Working: one part = 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and the chocolate is one part. Answer: 50 g. The distractors: 40 g comes from treating the 200 g as the total mass of the mixture and splitting it into 1 + 4 = 5 parts; 250 g is the total mass of the finished mixture, the 200 g of milk plus the chocolate, rather than the chocolate on its own; 800 g comes from multiplying 200 by 4 instead of dividing, which scales the milk up rather than down to the chocolate.
19. (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.
20. (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.