✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 9 °C — Method: the fall is the difference between the two readings, so subtract the lower reading from the higher one; subtracting a negative number is the same as adding its positive. Working: 3 − (−6) = 3 + 6 = 9. Counting it out, the temperature drops 3 degrees to reach zero and a further 6 degrees below zero. Answer: 9 °C. The distractors: −9 °C comes from subtracting the readings the wrong way round, as −6 − 3, and reporting a fall as a negative amount; 3 °C comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 6 − 3; 6 °C comes from counting only the part of the fall that happens below zero and forgetting the 3 degrees above it.
2. (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
3. (c) 1.2 — Add the parts of the ratio: 6 + 1 = 7. Divide the total amount by the number of parts: 8.4 ÷ 7 = 1.2 litres, which is the value of one part and also the amount of syrup, since syrup is 1 part. (7.2 litres is the amount of water, using 6 parts instead of 1. 1.4 comes from dividing 8.4 by 6 — the water's part of the ratio — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7. 0.84 comes from dividing 8.4 by 10 instead of by 7.)
4. (c) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
5. (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.
6. (d) £20 — 1% of £250 = £2.50, so 8% = 8 × £2.50 = £20. A candidate who misplaces the decimal point and finds 0.8% instead gets £2. A candidate who confuses 8% with 80% gets £200. A candidate who rounds 8% up to the nearby 10% gets £25.
7. (c) 2/3 — Method: multiply the numerators together and the denominators together, then divide both parts of the result by their highest common factor. Working: 3 × 14 = 42 and 7 × 9 = 63, giving 42/63; the highest common factor of 42 and 63 is 21, and 42 ÷ 21 = 2 with 63 ÷ 21 = 3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 17/16 comes from adding the numerators and adding the denominators, giving (3 + 14)/(7 + 9); 27/98 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 3/7 × 9/14; 2/21 comes from cancelling the 7 into the 14 in the numerator but leaving the 7 in the denominator, giving 6/63.
8. (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.
9. (b) 4 — Method: list the factors of each number and compare them; the highest common factor is the largest number that appears in both lists. Working: the factors of 20 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20; the factors of 32 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. The numbers that appear in both lists are 1, 2 and 4, and the largest of these is 4. 2 is a common factor of 20 and 32 but not the largest one. 8 is a factor of 32 but not of 20, since 20 ÷ 8 is not a whole number. 160 is the lowest common multiple of 20 and 32, not their highest common factor. Answer: 4.
10. (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.
11. (b) −18 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−4) × 3 = −12, so the calculation becomes (−6) + (−12) = −18. Answer: −18. The distractors: −30 comes from adding first and multiplying afterwards, giving (−6 + −4) × 3 = −10 × 3 = −30; 6 comes from treating (−4) × 3 as +12 on the grounds that a minus sign makes a product positive, giving −6 + 12 = 6; 18 comes from ignoring both minus signs and working out 6 + 4 × 3 = 18.
12. (c) 0.75 — Method: a fraction means the numerator divided by the denominator, and carrying out that division gives the decimal. Working: 3 ÷ 4 is worked out by writing 3 as 3.00; 4 divides into 30 tenths 7 times with 2 tenths left over, and 4 divides into the remaining 20 hundredths exactly 5 times, giving 7 tenths and 5 hundredths. Answer: 0.75. The distractors: 0.34 comes from writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point instead of dividing; 0.7 comes from adding the numerator and the denominator to get 7 and reading that as seven tenths; 0.25 comes from converting the quarter that is left over rather than the three quarters the question asks about.
13. (c) 12 m — Method: the perimeter of a rectangle is twice the sum of the length and the width, so half the perimeter is one length plus one width; split that half using the ratio. Working: half of 64 is 64 ÷ 2 = 32 m, the ratio 5:3 has 5 + 3 = 8 parts, so one part is 32 ÷ 8 = 4 m, and the width is 3 × 4 = 12 m. So the width is 12 m. Distractor 20 m is the length, 5 parts, not the width. Distractor 24 m comes from splitting the whole perimeter, 64 m, into 8 parts and multiplying by 3, forgetting to halve the perimeter first. Distractor 8 m comes from the same slip stopped one step earlier: splitting the whole perimeter into 8 parts, 64 ÷ 8 = 8, and giving that instead of the width.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (d) 60 — Method: 75% is three quarters, so divide by 4 to find one quarter and then multiply by 3. Working: 80 ÷ 4 = 20 for one quarter, and 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60 milk chocolates. The distractors: 20 is one quarter of 80, which is 25% and not 75%; 55 comes from subtracting 25 from 80 rather than taking 25% of 80 away from it; 75 comes from quoting the percentage itself as a number of chocolates.
19. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide. Working: 397 rounds to 400 and 21 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 400 ÷ 20 = 20. Answer: 20. The distractors: 19 comes from not estimating at all, since 397 ÷ 21 = 18.9 to 1 decimal place, which rounds to 19, while the question asks for an estimate from rounded numbers; 200 comes from dividing 400 by 2 instead of by 20, losing the place value of the rounded divisor; 2 comes from dividing the leading digits only and losing the place value of both numbers.
20. (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.