✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
3. (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
4. (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.
5. (d) 24 km — Method: a fraction acts as an operator, so finding 8/12 of a distance means dividing by the denominator and multiplying by the numerator. Working: 36 ÷ 12 = 3, so one twelfth of the walk is 3 km, and eight twelfths is 3 × 8 = 24 km. Answer: 24 km. The distractors: 12 km comes from working out the part of the walk still left, the other four twelfths, instead of the part already completed; 288 km comes from multiplying by the numerator without dividing by the denominator, giving 36 × 8 = 288; 4.5 km comes from dividing by the numerator instead of multiplying by it, giving 36 ÷ 8 = 4.5.
6. (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.
7. (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
8. (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.
9. (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
10. (c) 40° — Method: the three angles of a triangle always add up to 180°, so split 180° into the number of parts shown by the ratio. Working: the ratio 2:3:4 has 2 + 3 + 4 = 9 parts, so one part is 180 ÷ 9 = 20°, and the smallest angle is 2 × 20 = 40°. So the smallest angle is 40°. Distractor 60° is the middle-sized angle, 3 parts. Distractor 80° is the largest angle, 4 parts. Distractor 20° is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 2.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (d) 1,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 49 rounds to 50 and 21 rounds to 20, and 50 × 20 = 1,000 because 5 × 2 = 10 and the two rounded numbers carry one zero each. Answer: 1,000. The distractors: 800 comes from rounding 49 down to 40 instead of to the nearest ten; 1,500 comes from rounding 21 up to 30 rather than down to 20; 1,029 is the exact product 49 × 21, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
14. (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.
15. (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
16. (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor, 2x: 4x ÷ 2x = 2 and 6x ÷ 2x = 3, giving 2 : 3. Writing 4 : 6 has not been simplified at all. Writing 2x : 3x has cancelled the common factor of 2 but left the x in, so it is not written as a ratio of whole numbers. Writing 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
20. (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.