✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (d) 7/20 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.35 has two digits after the point, so it is 35 hundredths and can be written as 35/100; the highest common factor of 35 and 100 is 5, and 35 ÷ 5 = 7 with 100 ÷ 5 = 20. Answer: 7/20. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 7/25 comes from dividing the numerator by 5 but the denominator by 4, using a different factor on the top and on the bottom; 35/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
3. (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.
4. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
5. (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
6. (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.
7. (d) 3,200,000 — 1 million = 1,000,000, so 3.2 million = 3.2 × 1,000,000 = 3,200,000. A candidate who moves the decimal point one place too many gets 32,000,000. A candidate who moves it one place too few gets 320,000. A candidate who writes the .2 as extra thousands instead of hundred-thousands gets 3,002,000.
8. (c) −5 — Method: the bracket is worked out first, then the multiplication and the division, which stand as separate parts, and the subtraction that joins them is carried out last; subtracting a negative is the same as adding. Working: (−3) + 5 = 2, so the product is 2 × (−4) = −8; the division gives (−6) ÷ 2 = −3; joining them gives −8 − (−3) = −8 + 3 = −5. Answer: −5. The distractors: −11 comes from taking away 3 instead of taking away −3, giving −8 − 3 = −11; −1 comes from working from left to right once the bracket is done, giving −8 − (−6) = −2 and then −2 ÷ 2 = −1; 11 comes from treating the first product as positive because it was worked out from a bracket, giving 8 − (−3) = 11.
9. (b) 45 — Method: list multiples of each number until one is shared by both, or use 9 = 3² and 15 = 3 × 5, taking the highest power of each prime. Working: multiples of 9 are 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 …; multiples of 15 are 15, 30, 45 …. The lowest multiple in both lists is 45. 135 comes from working out 9 × 15 = 135, the product of the two numbers rather than their lowest common multiple. 3 is the highest common factor of 9 and 15, not the lowest common multiple. 24 comes from working out 9 + 15 = 24, which is not a multiple of either number. Answer: 45.
10. (d) £200 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total paid by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the most expensive item. Working: 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 parts, £400 ÷ 10 = £40 for one part, and the most expensive item is 5 parts, so 5 × £40 = £200. Answer: £200. The distractors: £40 is the value of one part; £80 is the 2-part item, the cheapest of the three; £120 is the 3-part item.
11. (b) £35 — Method: round each price to the nearest pound, then add the rounded prices. Working: £9.95 rounds to £10, £19.90 rounds to £20 and £4.99 rounds to £5, and £10 + £20 + £5 gives the estimate. Answer: £35. The distractors: £40 comes from rounding each price up to the nearest £10 rather than to the nearest pound, giving £10 + £20 + £10; £32 comes from cutting the pence off each price instead of rounding it, giving £9 + £19 + £4; £34.84 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
12. (c) 45% — Method: adding water changes the total volume but not the amount of fruit juice, so find the juice, find the new total volume, and write the first as a percentage of the second. Working: 3 × 0.6 = 1.8 litres of fruit juice; the new volume is 3 + 1 = 4 litres; 1.8 ÷ 4 = 0.45, which is 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 60% is the strength before the water goes in, and assumes that adding water leaves the strength unchanged; 15% comes from dividing the 60% by the 4 litres of mixture instead of dividing the 1.8 litres of juice by the 4 litres; 75% is the fraction of the new mixture that came out of the original jug, 3 litres out of 4, which ignores that only 60% of that 3 litres was juice.
13. (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.
14. (a) 120 — For the lowest common multiple, take each prime that appears in either factorisation, raised to the higher power. In 2³ × 3 and 2² × 3 × 5, the prime 2 appears with power 3 in one and power 2 in the other — take the higher, 2³; the prime 3 appears with the same power in both, 3¹; and the prime 5 appears only in the second factorisation, so use 5¹. Multiplying these, 2³ × 3 × 5, gives 120. Taking the lower power of 2 instead of the higher, and leaving out 5 altogether, gives the highest common factor, 12, instead. Multiplying the two original numbers together, 24 × 60, gives 1440, which double-counts every shared prime factor. Assuming the lowest common multiple is simply the larger of the two numbers gives 60, but 60 is not a multiple of 24 — 60 ÷ 24 does not divide exactly. So the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60 is 120.
15. (d) 60 — Method: a percentage acts as an operator, so finding 20% of an amount means multiplying it by 20/100, which cancels to 1/5. Working: 20% = 20/100 = 1/5, and 300 ÷ 5 = 60. Answer: 60 seats. The distractors: 15 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out 300 ÷ 20 = 15; 30 comes from finding 10% of 300 and stopping there instead of doubling it; 6 comes from converting 20% to 0.02 rather than 0.2, giving 0.02 × 300 = 6.
16. (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.
17. (b) 2.1 m — The three pieces use 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 m of wood. Remaining wood = 4.8 − 2.7 = 2.1 m. A candidate who miscounts and only subtracts 2 pieces instead of 3 gets 4.8 − 1.8 = 3.0 m. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 4.8 + 2.7 = 7.5 m. A candidate who gives the length used instead of the length remaining gets 2.7 m.
18. (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
19. (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.
20. (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.