✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) £52,000 — Method: convert 130% to a decimal multiplier and multiply it by last year's profit. Working: 130% = 1.3, so this year's profit is £40,000 × 1.3 = £52,000. Answer: £52,000. £12,000 comes from using only the extra 30% (130% − 100%) and forgetting to include the original 100%, £40,000 × 0.3 = £12,000. £40,130 comes from simply adding 130 onto £40,000, treating the percentage as an amount of money rather than a multiplier. £5,200 comes from misreading 130% as 13%, giving £40,000 × 0.13 = £5,200.
2. (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
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. (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.
5. (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
6. (d) 25 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total membership by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the group asked for. Working: 3 + 5 = 8 parts, 40 ÷ 8 = 5 members in one part, and the seniors are 5 parts, so 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 seniors. The distractors: 15 is the number of juniors, which is the 3-part group; 5 is the size of one part only; 24 comes from dividing the 40 by 5, the seniors' number in the ratio, to get 8 and then multiplying that by 3.
7. (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
8. (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
9. (a) £177.60 — Total raised = 240 × £1.85 = £444.00. The hospital receives 40% of this: £444.00 × 0.4 = £177.60. A candidate who works out the remaining 60% instead of the 40% given away gets £266.40. A candidate who forgets to find the percentage and gives the full total gets £444.00. A candidate who halves 40% by mistake and uses 20% gets £88.80.
10. (a) 1:8 — Convert 2 kg to grams: 2 kg = 2000 g. The ratio is 250 : 2000. The highest common factor of 250 and 2000 is 250. Divide both parts by 250: 250 ÷ 250 = 1 and 2000 ÷ 250 = 8, so the ratio is 1 : 8. Leaving the kilograms unconverted gives 250 : 2, which simplifies to 125 : 1 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 50 instead of 250 gives 5 : 40, which still shares a common factor of 5, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 1, grams to kilograms the wrong way round.
11. (b) 9/25 — Method: write the decimal over the matching power of ten, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.36 has two digits after the point, so 0.36 = 36/100; the highest common factor of 36 and 100 is 4, and 36 ÷ 4 = 9 with 100 ÷ 4 = 25; since 9 and 25 share no factor greater than 1, the fraction is fully cancelled. Answer: 9/25. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 9/50 comes from dividing the numerator by 4 but the denominator by only 2; 36/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
12. (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.
13. (a) 9:11 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18, and the factors of 22 are 1, 2, 11 and 22, so the highest common factor is 2; 18 ÷ 2 = 9 and 22 ÷ 2 = 11. Answer: 9:11. The distractors: 11:9 comes from dividing both parts correctly but writing them the wrong way round, so it describes 22 to 18 rather than 18 to 22; 9:22 comes from dividing only the first part by 2 and leaving the second part untouched; 9:13 comes from subtracting 9 from each part instead of dividing, since 18 − 9 = 9 and 22 − 9 = 13, and subtracting the same amount from both parts does not give an equivalent ratio.
14. (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.
15. (a) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
16. (a) 20% — Method: a percentage is a number of parts per hundred, so divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply by 100. Working: 1 ÷ 5 = 0.2, and 0.2 × 100 = 20; the same result comes from scaling 1/5 to 20/100. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 5% comes from reading the denominator 5 straight off as the percentage; 25% comes from confusing 1/5 with 1/4, the fraction met most often in percentage work; 50% comes from a place value slip in the division, writing 1 ÷ 5 as 0.5 instead of 0.2.
17. (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.
18. (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
19. (d) 17 — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, then 20 − 4 = 16, then 16 + 1 = 17. Stopping after the subtraction and forgetting to add the final 1 leaves 16. Adding the 4 and the 1 together before subtracting gives 4 + 1 = 5, then 20 − 5 = 15 — the subtraction should use the 4 from the division, not a combined total. Working strictly left to right without giving division priority gives 20 − 8 = 12, then 12 ÷ 2 = 6, then 6 + 1 = 7.
20. (a) 50 — Method: 25% is one quarter, so 25% of a quantity is the quantity divided by 4. Working: 200 ÷ 4 = 50. Answer: 50. The distractors: 25 comes from writing the percentage itself as the answer; 100 comes from halving, which is 50% not 25%; 800 comes from multiplying by 4 instead of dividing.