✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 36 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the number of parts in the share asked for. Working: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, 72 ÷ 6 = 12 for one part, and the largest number is 3 parts, so 3 × 12 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 is the value of one part, which is the smallest of the three numbers rather than the largest; 24 is 2 parts, the middle number; 216 comes from multiplying 72 by 3 instead of dividing 72 by the 6 parts first.
3. (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
4. (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.
5. (d) £120 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the prize by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the share asked for. Working: 2 + 3 + 4 = 9 parts, £360 ÷ 9 = £40 for one part, and the share asked for is 3 parts, so 3 × £40 = £120. Answer: £120. The distractors: £40 is the value of one part rather than of a 3-part share; £80 is the 2-part share; £160 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by picking the largest share instead of the one the question names.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (c) 0.94 — Method: a fraction is written as a decimal by making the denominator a power of ten, because the decimal places record tenths, hundredths and thousandths. Working: 50 × 2 = 100, so the numerator must also be multiplied by 2, giving 47 × 2 = 94 and the equivalent fraction 94/100; 94 hundredths is written with two digits after the decimal point. Answer: 0.94. The distractors: 0.47 comes from treating the denominator as though it were already 100 and writing the digits of the numerator straight after the point; 4.7 comes from dividing 47 by 10 instead of by 50; 0.094 comes from multiplying the denominator by 20 to reach 1000 but the numerator by only 2, giving 94/1000.
9. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
13. (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor, 2x: 4x ÷ 2x = 2 and 6x ÷ 2x = 3, giving 2 : 3. Writing 4 : 6 has not been simplified at all. Writing 2x : 3x has cancelled the common factor of 2 but left the x in, so it is not written as a ratio of whole numbers. Writing 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round.
14. (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
15. (b) 1 : 1.875 — To write a ratio in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by the first part, 8: 8 ÷ 8 = 1 and 15 ÷ 8 = 1.875, giving 1 : 1.875. Giving 1 : 0.53 divides the wrong way round, computing 8 ÷ 15 instead of 15 ÷ 8. Giving 1.875 : 1 has the two parts of the answer swapped, which is the form n : 1, not 1 : n. Giving 8 : 1.875 divides only the second part by 8, so the first part is still 8, not 1.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
20. (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.