✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
2. (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.
3. (a) 36 — Method: for the highest common factor, take the LOWER power of each prime that appears in both numbers. Working: for 2, the lower power is 2² (from 108); for 3, the lower power is 3² (from 72), so the highest common factor is 2² × 3² = 4 × 9 = 36. 216 comes from taking the higher power of each prime instead, 2³ × 3³ = 8 × 27 = 216, which gives the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. 108 is simply one of the two numbers, not their highest common factor. 6 comes from multiplying the primes without any powers at all, 2 × 3 = 6. Answer: 36.
4. (d) 3/5 — Method: a decimal with one digit after the point is a number of tenths, so it is written over 10 and then cancelled. Working: 0.6 is six tenths, so 0.6 = 6/10; the highest common factor of 6 and 10 is 2, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3 with 10 ÷ 2 = 5. Answer: 3/5. The distractors: 2/3 comes from confusing 0.6 with the recurring decimal 0.666..., which is the one that equals 2/3; 1/6 comes from putting 1 over the single digit after the point; 3/50 comes from using hundredths for a one-place decimal, giving 6/100, which then cancels by 2 to 3/50.
5. (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.
6. (c) 1:2 — Convert £1.50 into pence: £1.50 = 150p, so the ratio is 75 : 150. Dividing both parts by 75 gives 1 : 2. Getting 50 : 1 comes from not converting the units at all and simplifying 75 : 1.5. Getting 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 3 : 4 comes from reading 75p as 3/4 of a pound and then comparing it with £1 instead of £1.50.
7. (b) 75 g — Method: split the total mass into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the mass of tin. Working: the ratio 7:3 has 7 + 3 = 10 parts, so one part is 250 ÷ 10 = 25 g, and the mass of tin is 3 × 25 = 75 g. So the alloy contains 75 g of tin. Distractor 175 g is the mass of copper, not tin. Distractor 125 g comes from splitting the alloy into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 25 g is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
12. (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
13. (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
14. (b) 11 — Method: roots and the multiplication are worked out before the addition and subtraction, and what is left is then worked through from left to right. Working: √144 = 12, √25 = 5 and 2 × 3 = 6, so the calculation becomes 12 − 6 + 5, which gives 6 + 5 = 11. Answer: 11. The distractors: 1 comes from carrying out the addition before the subtraction, giving 12 − (6 + 5) = 12 − 11 = 1; 35 comes from working from left to right with no priority, giving 12 − 2 = 10, then 10 × 3 = 30 and 30 + 5 = 35; 7 comes from combining the two roots as √(144 + 25) = √169 = 13 and then subtracting the product, giving 13 − 6 = 7.
15. (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (a) £20,000 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the profit by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the partner asked about. Working: 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 parts, £48,000 ÷ 12 = £4,000 for one part, and that partner has 5 parts, so 5 × £4,000 = £20,000. Answer: £20,000. The distractors: £4,000 is the value of one part; £12,000 is the 3-part share; £16,000 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by assuming the biggest share must go with the number written last in the ratio.
20. (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.