✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
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) 12 — Method: division and multiplication have equal priority, so they are carried out in the order they are written, from left to right; a negative divided by a negative is positive. Working: (−36) ÷ (−6) = 6, and then 6 × 2 = 12. Answer: 12. The distractors: 3 comes from carrying out the multiplication first, (−6) × 2 = −12 followed by (−36) ÷ (−12) = 3; −12 comes from treating a negative divided by a negative as negative, giving −6 and then −6 × 2 = −12; 6 comes from stopping at the division and never carrying out the multiplication by 2.
4. (b) 20 — Method: check a calculator answer by replacing the percentage with a simple fraction — 25% is one quarter, so the calculation becomes a division by 4. Working: 80 ÷ 4 = 20, and the calculator answer of 320 is 80 × 4, which is what happens when the amount is multiplied by 4 instead of divided by it; a quarter of an amount must be smaller than the amount. Answer: 20. The distractors: 25 comes from writing the percentage itself down as the answer; 16 comes from dividing by 5 instead of by 4, which finds 20% rather than 25%; 3.2 comes from working out 80 ÷ 25 instead of a quarter of 80.
5. (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
6. (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.
7. (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
8. (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.
9. (a) £1,000 — Method: find the increase, then add it to the original price; the multiplier 1.25 does both steps at once. Working: 25% is one quarter, so 25% of £800 = £800 ÷ 4 = £200, and £800 + £200 = £1,000. Answer: £1,000. The distractors: £200 is the increase on its own, not the new price; £825 comes from adding £25 to £800, treating the 25% as £25; £600 comes from taking the 25% off the price instead of adding it on.
10. (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
11. (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
12. (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
13. (c) £22.50 — Method: find the cost of 1 kg, then multiply by the mass wanted. Working: £36 ÷ 2.4 = £15 per kilogram, and 1.5 × £15 = £22.50. Answer: £22.50. The distractors: £15 is the price of 1 kg, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; £54 comes from multiplying the £36 by 1.5 without first reducing it to a price per kilogram; £57.60 comes from using the scale factor upside down, multiplying £36 by 2.4 ÷ 1.5 = 1.6 instead of by 1.5 ÷ 2.4.
14. (a) 7 — Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10, so 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 7. Meera's answer of 0.07 comes from dividing 0.7 by 10 instead of by 0.1, the wrong way round. A candidate who confuses 0.1 with 0.01 multiplies by 100 instead of 10 and gets 70. A candidate who thinks dividing by a number less than 1 does not change the value gets 0.7.
15. (a) 8 — To undo 'multiply by 4, then add 8', reverse the operations in reverse order: subtract 8 first, then divide by 4. 40 − 8 = 32, and 32 ÷ 4 = 8, so the number is 8. A candidate who added 8 again instead of subtracting worked out 40 + 8 = 48, then 48 ÷ 4 = 12. A candidate who divided before subtracting, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out 40 ÷ 4 = 10, then 10 − 8 = 2. A candidate who multiplied instead of dividing at the last step worked out (40 − 8) × 4 = 32 × 4 = 128.
16. (d) −1.7 — Since the numbers have different signs, find the difference between their sizes: 4.5 − 2.8 = 1.7, then keep the sign of the number further from zero. So −4.5 + 2.8 = −1.7. A candidate who drops the negative sign gets 1.7. A candidate who adds the magnitudes instead of finding the difference gets −(4.5 + 2.8) = −7.3. A candidate who takes the smaller digit from the larger in the tenths column, doing 8 − 5 = 3 instead of borrowing to make 15 − 8 = 7, gets 2.3 and so −2.3.
17. (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.
18. (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
19. (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.
20. (c) £90 — Method: split the total amount into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find Chloe's share. Working: the ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts, so one part is £150 ÷ 5 = £30, and Chloe's share is 3 × £30 = £90. So Chloe receives £90. Distractor £60 is Ben's share, not Chloe's. Distractor £75 comes from splitting the money into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor £30 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.