✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 20% — Method: a percentage is a number of parts per hundred, so divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply by 100. Working: 1 ÷ 5 = 0.2, and 0.2 × 100 = 20; the same result comes from scaling 1/5 to 20/100. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 5% comes from reading the denominator 5 straight off as the percentage; 25% comes from confusing 1/5 with 1/4, the fraction met most often in percentage work; 50% comes from a place value slip in the division, writing 1 ÷ 5 as 0.5 instead of 0.2.
2. (a) 1/16 — Method: terms can only be subtracted once they share a denominator, so write every term over the largest denominator, 16, and then subtract the numerators in order from left to right. Working: 1 = 16/16, 1/2 = 8/16, 1/4 = 4/16 and 1/8 = 2/16, so the numerators give 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 − 1 = 1, over a denominator of 16. Answer: 1/16. The distractors: 1/8 comes from stopping one term early, after 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 = 2; 3/16 comes from a sign slip on the last term, adding it instead of subtracting it, which gives 2 + 1 = 3; 15/16 comes from working from the right-hand end as though the last four terms were bracketed together, so that only a single sixteenth is taken away from 1.
3. (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
4. (b) £220 — Method: round each ticket price to the nearest £5, multiply each rounded price by the number of tickets, then add the two totals. Working: the adult price £38.50 rounds to £40, and 4 × £40 = £160; the child price £19.75 rounds to £20, and 3 × £20 = £60; £160 + £60 = £220. Answer: £220. £213.25 is the exact total cost, found without rounding the prices first, so it is not an estimate. £160 comes from including the cost of the adult tickets only and forgetting the three children's tickets. £200 comes from swapping the two ticket quantities, using 3 adults and 4 children instead of 4 adults and 3 children.
5. (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.
6. (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
10. (d) £70 — Method: the discount is a percentage of the original price only, so work it out, subtract it, and add the fixed delivery charge afterwards. Working: 25% of £80 is £80 ÷ 4 = £20, so the discounted price is £80 − £20 = £60, and the total is £60 + £10 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £60 comes from working out the discounted price and stopping there, leaving the delivery charge out of the total; £65 comes from taking £25 off the price instead of 25% of it, giving £80 − £25 = £55 and then £55 + £10 = £65; £67.50 comes from adding the delivery charge before the discount and reducing the whole amount, giving 75% of £90 = £67.50.
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. (d) 60 — Method: a percentage acts as an operator, so finding 20% of an amount means multiplying it by 20/100, which cancels to 1/5. Working: 20% = 20/100 = 1/5, and 300 ÷ 5 = 60. Answer: 60 seats. The distractors: 15 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out 300 ÷ 20 = 15; 30 comes from finding 10% of 300 and stopping there instead of doubling it; 6 comes from converting 20% to 0.02 rather than 0.2, giving 0.02 × 300 = 6.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (a) 360 — The inverse of ÷ 15 is × 15, so the missing number is 24 × 15 = 360. Subtracting instead of multiplying gives 24 − 15 = 9. Dividing by 15 again instead of multiplying gives 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Adding instead of multiplying gives 24 + 15 = 39.
16. (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.
17. (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
18. (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.
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. (a) 18 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then square each rounded number and add the results. Working: 2.9 rounds to 3 and 3.1 rounds to 3, so the estimate is 3² + 3² = 9 + 9. Answer: 18. The distractors: 36 comes from adding before squaring, working out (3 + 3)² instead of 3² + 3²; 12 comes from doubling each rounded number instead of squaring it, adding 6 and 6; 6 comes from adding the two rounded numbers and forgetting to square them at all.