✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
4. (d) 17 — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, then 20 − 4 = 16, then 16 + 1 = 17. Stopping after the subtraction and forgetting to add the final 1 leaves 16. Adding the 4 and the 1 together before subtracting gives 4 + 1 = 5, then 20 − 5 = 15 — the subtraction should use the 4 from the division, not a combined total. Working strictly left to right without giving division priority gives 20 − 8 = 12, then 12 ÷ 2 = 6, then 6 + 1 = 7.
5. (b) 3.5 — Method: work out each percentage of its number separately, then subtract the smaller result from the larger one. Working: 45% of 70 = 31.5, and 35% of 80 = 28, so the difference is 31.5 − 28 = 3.5. Answer: 3.5. 11.5 comes from pairing the percentages with the wrong numbers, working out 35% of 70 = 24.5 and 45% of 80 = 36, and finding their difference. 59.5 comes from adding the two correct results, 31.5 + 28, instead of subtracting them. 10 comes from simply subtracting the two percentages themselves, 45 − 35, without applying them to the numbers at all.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
9. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
10. (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
11. (d) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
12. (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
13. (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
14. (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.
15. (b) £35 — Method: round each price to the nearest pound, then add the rounded prices. Working: £9.95 rounds to £10, £19.90 rounds to £20 and £4.99 rounds to £5, and £10 + £20 + £5 gives the estimate. Answer: £35. The distractors: £40 comes from rounding each price up to the nearest £10 rather than to the nearest pound, giving £10 + £20 + £10; £32 comes from cutting the pence off each price instead of rounding it, giving £9 + £19 + £4; £34.84 is the exact total, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
16. (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.
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. (d) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
19. (a) 9/20 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.45 = 45/100 = 9/20 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 5). Answer: 9/20. 9/100 comes from dividing only the numerator by 5 and leaving the denominator as 100. 9/2 comes from writing the decimal over 10 instead of 100, as if there were only one decimal place, then simplifying 45/10. 9/200 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places, then simplifying 45/1000.
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.