✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) 80% — Percentage = (40 ÷ 50) × 100 = 80%.
3. (c) 1:2 — Convert £1.50 into pence: £1.50 = 150p, so the ratio is 75 : 150. Dividing both parts by 75 gives 1 : 2. Getting 50 : 1 comes from not converting the units at all and simplifying 75 : 1.5. Getting 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 3 : 4 comes from reading 75p as 3/4 of a pound and then comparing it with £1 instead of £1.50.
4. (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.
5. (a) 8 — To undo 'multiply by 4, then add 8', reverse the operations in reverse order: subtract 8 first, then divide by 4. 40 − 8 = 32, and 32 ÷ 4 = 8, so the number is 8. A candidate who added 8 again instead of subtracting worked out 40 + 8 = 48, then 48 ÷ 4 = 12. A candidate who divided before subtracting, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out 40 ÷ 4 = 10, then 10 − 8 = 2. A candidate who multiplied instead of dividing at the last step worked out (40 − 8) × 4 = 32 × 4 = 128.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (a) −22 — Method: both multiplications are carried out before the addition, and a positive multiplied by a negative is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12 and 2 × (−5) = −10, so the calculation becomes −12 + (−10) = −22. Answer: −22. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus signs and working out 3 × 4 + 2 × 5 = 22; 50 comes from working from left to right with no priority at all, giving −12 + 2 = −10 and then −10 × (−5) = 50; −2 comes from taking 2 × (−5) as +10, so that −12 + 10 = −2.
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. (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.
11. (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.
12. (d) 19 — 2² = 4, then 4 × 4 = 16, then 3 + 16 = 19. Adding before multiplying gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 4 = 28 — multiplication comes before addition. Squaring the product instead of just the 2 gives 4 × 2 = 8, then 8² = 64, then 3 + 64 = 67. Working strictly left to right throughout gives 3 + 4 = 7, then 7 × 2 = 14, then 14² = 196.
13. (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
14. (a) 5 — Method: each index is worked out first, and subtracting a negative number is the same as adding the positive. Working: (−2)³ = (−2) × (−2) × (−2) = −8 and (−3)² = (−3) × (−3) = 9, while − (−4) becomes + 4, so the calculation becomes −8 + 9 + 4 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: −13 comes from taking (−3)² as −9, giving −8 − 9 + 4 = −13; −3 comes from reading − (−4) as − 4, giving −8 + 9 − 4 = −3; 21 comes from treating every power of a negative number as positive, so that (−2)³ is taken as 8 and the calculation becomes 8 + 9 + 4 = 21.
15. (a) 12 — Method: for any two numbers, their highest common factor multiplied by their lowest common multiple equals the product of the two numbers. This holds because the HCF collects every prime factor the two numbers share, and the LCM collects every prime factor that appears in either number, so between them they use each prime factor of the two numbers exactly once — the same primes as the product. Working: 4 × 60 = 240, and 240 ÷ 20 = 12. 15 comes from working out 60 ÷ 4 = 15, dividing the wrong pair of numbers. 16 comes from working out 20 − 4 = 16, subtracting the highest common factor instead of using the product rule. 240 is 4 × 60, the product of the highest common factor and the lowest common multiple, left un-divided by 20. Answer: 12.
16. (a) 1/5 — Work out the bracket first: 2 + 3 = 5. The reciprocal of 5 is 1/5. A candidate who forgot to take the reciprocal and just gave the value of the bracket wrote 5. A candidate who took the reciprocal but made a sign error wrote −1/5. A candidate who found the reciprocal of each number separately and added them, treating reciprocal as if it distributes over addition, worked out 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6.
17. (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
18. (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.
19. (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.
20. (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.