✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) 1.05 litres — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the total volume, then find the share for pineapple juice. Working: the ratio 5:3:2 has 5 + 3 + 2 = 10 parts, so one part is 3.5 ÷ 10 = 0.35 litres, and the pineapple juice is 3 × 0.35 = 1.05 litres. So 1.05 litres of pineapple juice is needed. Distractor 1.75 litres is the volume of orange juice, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.7 litres is the volume of lemonade, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.35 litres is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
3. (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.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (b) 30 — Method: the smallest matching total is the lowest common multiple of the two pack sizes. Working: multiples of 6 are 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 …; multiples of 10 are 10, 20, 30 …. The lowest common multiple is 30. 60 comes from working out 6 × 10 = 60, the product of the pack sizes rather than their lowest common multiple. 16 comes from working out 6 + 10 = 16, which is not a common multiple at all. 2 is the highest common factor of 6 and 10, not a total of tickets. Answer: 30.
7. (d) 600 — Method: the number of seats is the number of rows multiplied by the number of seats in each row, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then multiply the rounded values, which is quick because a product of two multiples of ten is found by multiplying the non-zero digits and attaching the zeros. Working: 21 rounds to 20 and 29 rounds to 30; 2 × 3 = 6, and 20 and 30 carry one zero each, so two zeros follow the 6. Answer: about 600 seats. The distractors: 50 comes from adding the two rounded numbers instead of multiplying them, 20 + 30; 60 comes from multiplying 20 by the 3 of 30 and forgetting the zero in 30; 6,000 comes from attaching three zeros to 2 × 3 when 20 and 30 provide only two between them.
8. (d) £50.00 — The sale price is 85% of the original, so the original price = £42.50 ÷ 0.85 = £50.00. 15% of £42.50 is £6.375. A candidate who finds 15% of £42.50 and subtracts it from the sale price gets £42.50 − £6.375 = £36.125, which is £36.13 to the nearest penny. A candidate who adds 15% of £42.50 instead of reversing the decrease gets £42.50 + £6.375 = £48.875, which is £48.88 to the nearest penny. A candidate who divides by 0.15 instead of 0.85 gets £283.33.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 588 rounds to 600 (1 s.f.) and 31 rounds to 30 (1 s.f.). 600 ÷ 30 = 20. Answer: 20. 17 comes from cutting 588 down to 500, keeping the leading digit as it stands instead of rounding it up to 1 significant figure, 600, then dividing by the correctly rounded 30. 200 comes from misreading the rounded divisor 30 as 3, giving 600 ÷ 3 instead of 600 ÷ 30. 19 is the exact value of 588 ÷ 31 rounded to the nearest whole number, found without rounding the numbers first.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (b) −4 — To subtract a negative number, add its positive equivalent: −7 − (−3) becomes −7 + 3. Work out −7 + 3 to get −4. Treating "− (−3)" as simply "−3" without flipping the sign gives the wrong working −7 − 3, which is −10. Ignoring the negative sign on −7 and just subtracting the values, 7 − 3, gives 4, which loses the sign of the starting number. Flipping the sign of both numbers, 7 + 3, gives 10, which changes more than the double negative allows. So −7 − (−3) = −4.
16. (c) £7.25 — Find the total cost of the books first: 3 × 4.25 = 12.75, so the books cost £12.75 in total. Subtract this from the £20 note: 20.00 − 12.75 = 7.25, so the change is £7.25. Stopping after finding the cost and not subtracting it from £20 gives £12.75, which is the amount spent, not the change. Borrowing correctly in the pence column but forgetting to reduce the pounds column by 1 gives £8.25 instead of £7.25. Multiplying 3 × 4.25 as 12.25 instead of 12.75, a multiplication slip, makes the change come out £0.50 too high, at £7.75. So Jack receives £7.25 change.
17. (c) 2/3 — Method: fractions with the same denominator are added by adding the numerators and leaving the denominator alone, because the parts are already the same size. Working: 1/3 + 1/3 has numerators 1 + 1 = 2 and the denominator stays as 3, giving 2/3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 2/6 comes from adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 1 + 1 over 3 + 3; 2/9 comes from adding the numerators but multiplying the denominators, 1 + 1 over 3 × 3; 1/9 comes from multiplying throughout instead of adding, 1 × 1 over 3 × 3.
18. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
19. (c) 40 cm — Method: split the total length into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the value of the shorter share. Working: the ratio 4:5 has 4 + 5 = 9 parts, so one part is 90 ÷ 9 = 10 cm, and the shorter piece is 4 × 10 = 40 cm. So the shorter piece is 40 cm. Distractor 50 cm is the length of the LONGER piece, not the shorter one. Distractor 45 cm comes from splitting the ribbon into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 10 cm is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
20. (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.