✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) 4 13/15 — Convert to fifteenths: 1/5 is equivalent to 3/15 (multiply by 3/3), and 2/3 is equivalent to 10/15 (multiply by 5/5), so 3 1/5 is equivalent to 3 3/15 and 1 2/3 is equivalent to 1 10/15. Add the whole numbers (3 + 1 = 4) and the fractions (3/15 + 10/15 = 13/15), giving 4 13/15. A candidate who adds the numerators and denominators straight across, treating 1/5 + 2/3 as (1+2)/(5+3), gets a fraction part of 3/8, giving 4 3/8. A candidate who adds the fraction parts correctly but forgets to add the second whole number gets 3 13/15. A candidate who adds the whole numbers but copies the first fraction across without ever adding 2/3 to it gets 4 1/5.
2. (a) Yes, because 120 ends in 0 — Method: a whole number divides exactly by 5 when its last digit is 5 or 0, so look at the final digit. Working: the final digit of 120 is 0, so 120 is a multiple of 5; the division confirms it, since 5 × 24 = 120 with nothing left over. Answer: Yes, because 120 ends in 0. The distractors: the option that says yes because 120 is even reaches the right conclusion from the wrong test, since being even is the test for divisibility by 2, and 14 is even but is not a multiple of 5; saying no because 5 does not divide into 12 comes from ignoring the final digit and testing only the leading digits; saying no because the digits add to 3 applies the digit-sum test, which works for 3 and for 9 but not for 5.
3. (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
4. (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.
5. (c) 600 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then add the rounded values. Working: 113 is nearer to 100 than to 200, so it rounds to 100; 491 is nearer to 500 than to 400, so it rounds to 500; adding those gives the estimate. Answer: 600. The distractors: 500 comes from rounding each number down to the hundred below instead of to the nearest hundred, giving 100 + 400; 700 comes from rounding each number up to the hundred above, giving 200 + 500; 604 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
6. (d) 3 : 7 — There are 9 apples and 21 oranges, giving the ratio 9 : 21. The highest common factor of 9 and 21 is 3: 9 ÷ 3 = 3 and 21 ÷ 3 = 7, so the simplest form is 3 : 7. Giving 9 : 21 has not been simplified. Giving 7 : 3 swaps the order, comparing oranges to apples instead of apples to oranges. Giving 9 : 12 compares the number of apples with the difference between the two amounts (21 − 9 = 12), not with the number of oranges.
7. (d) 25% — Method: to convert a decimal to a percentage, multiply by 100. Working: 0.25 × 100 = 25. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 0.25% comes from writing a percent sign after the decimal without multiplying; 2.5% comes from multiplying by 10 instead of 100; 250% comes from multiplying by 1000.
8. (c) 45% — Method: adding water changes the total volume but not the amount of fruit juice, so find the juice, find the new total volume, and write the first as a percentage of the second. Working: 3 × 0.6 = 1.8 litres of fruit juice; the new volume is 3 + 1 = 4 litres; 1.8 ÷ 4 = 0.45, which is 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 60% is the strength before the water goes in, and assumes that adding water leaves the strength unchanged; 15% comes from dividing the 60% by the 4 litres of mixture instead of dividing the 1.8 litres of juice by the 4 litres; 75% is the fraction of the new mixture that came out of the original jug, 3 litres out of 4, which ignores that only 60% of that 3 litres was juice.
9. (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.
10. (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
11. (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.
12. (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.
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. (b) £50 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the largest share. Working: 3 + 4 + 5 = 12 parts, £120 ÷ 12 = £10 for one part, and the largest share is 5 parts, so 5 × £10 = £50. Answer: £50. The distractors: £10 is the value of one part only; £30 is the 3-part share, which is the smallest one; £40 is the 4-part share, the middle one.
15. (c) 0.024 — Multiply the digits ignoring the decimal points: 6 × 4 = 24. Count the total number of decimal places in the two numbers being multiplied: 0.6 has 1 decimal place and 0.04 has 2, giving 3 in total. Place the decimal point in 24 so that there are 3 digits after it: 0.024. Counting only 2 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.24. Counting 4 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.0024. Counting only 1 decimal place instead of 3 — in effect moving the point in just one of the two numbers, as if the calculation were 6 × 0.4 — gives 2.4. So 0.6 × 0.04 = 0.024.
16. (b) 6 — List the factors of each number: the factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12; the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18. The common factors are 1, 2, 3 and 6, and the highest of these is 6. Picking 2, a common factor but not the largest, gives an answer that is too small. Picking 3, also a common factor but still not the largest, gives another answer that is too small. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 36. So the highest common factor of 12 and 18 is 6.
17. (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
18. (b) (2 + 3) × 5 − 1 — 2 + 3 = 5, then 5 × 5 = 25, then 25 − 1 = 24, so the brackets belong around 2 + 3. Placing them around 5 − 1 instead gives 5 − 1 = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, then 2 + 12 = 14. Leaving the multiplication bracketed instead changes nothing, because it already had priority: 3 × 5 = 15, then 2 + 15 = 17, then 17 − 1 = 16. Bracketing both 2 + 3 and 5 − 1 uses two pairs instead of the one asked for: 2 + 3 = 5, 5 − 1 = 4, then 5 × 4 = 20.
19. (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.
20. (d) 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17. — Check 51 for small prime factors: 51 ÷ 3 = 17, and both 3 and 17 are themselves prime, so 51 = 3 × 17 and 51 is not a prime number — it has factors other than 1 and itself. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 and concluding wrongly that none of them divide 51 misses that 3 does divide it exactly, so the claim that 51 is prime because it avoids 2, 3 and 5 is false. Assuming any odd number must be prime ignores that 51 = 3 × 17 is a counterexample — plenty of odd numbers are not prime. Misreading 51 as the even number 52 leads to the false claim that it is divisible by 2; 51 itself is odd, and 2 is not one of its factors. So 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17.