✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) £45.90 — The cost is 18 × £3.45 = £62.10. Profit = £108 − £62.10 = £45.90. A candidate who does not borrow in the tenths column, doing 1 − 0 = 1 instead of borrowing to make 10 − 1 = 9 and so leaving the units as 8 − 2 = 6, gets £46.10. A candidate who adds the cost to the selling price instead of subtracting gets £108 + £62.10 = £170.10. A candidate who gives the cost instead of the profit gets £62.10.
2. (b) 10 — First find 1/4 of 80, which is 20, then find 1/2 of that: 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Adding the two fractions together instead of applying them one after the other, 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4, and finding 3/4 of 80 gives 60. Finding 1/4 of 80 = 20 correctly but stopping before applying the second fraction leaves 20 as the final answer. Finding 1/2 of 80 = 40 first but forgetting to then find 1/4 of that leaves 40 as the final answer.
3. (c) 36 — Add the parts of the ratio: 3 + 4 = 7. Divide the total by the number of parts: 84 ÷ 7 = 12, so one part is worth 12. The smaller share has 3 parts: 3 × 12 = 36. (48 is the larger share, using 4 parts instead of 3. 42 comes from splitting 84 in half, treating the ratio as if it were 1:1. 28 comes from dividing 84 by 3 — one of the ratio numbers — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7.)
4. (b) 30 — Method: 12% of an amount is 12/100 of it, so find 1% by dividing by 100 and then multiply by 12. Working: 1% of 250 is 250 ÷ 100 = 2.5, and 12% is 2.5 × 12 = 30. Answer: 30 seats. The distractors: 3 comes from writing 12% as 0.012 instead of 0.12, giving 0.012 × 250 = 3; 25 comes from finding 10% of the seats and stopping there; 24 comes from counting 12 seats for each whole hundred, 12 + 12 = 24, and ignoring the remaining 50 seats.
5. (c) 9 — Method: factors come in pairs that multiply to give the number, so work through the pairs in order; a factor paired with itself is counted only once. Working: the pairs are 1 × 100, 2 × 50, 4 × 25, 5 × 20 and 10 × 10. The first four pairs give eight different factors, and the last pair adds only one more, so the factors are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Answer: 9. The distractors: 10 comes from counting the pair 10 × 10 as two separate factors; 8 comes from leaving 1 out of the list, on the view that 1 is not a proper factor; 4 comes from writing 100 = 2² × 5² and multiplying the two indices together instead of adding 1 to each index first.
6. (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.
7. (d) 25 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total membership by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the group asked for. Working: 3 + 5 = 8 parts, 40 ÷ 8 = 5 members in one part, and the seniors are 5 parts, so 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 seniors. The distractors: 15 is the number of juniors, which is the 3-part group; 5 is the size of one part only; 24 comes from dividing the 40 by 5, the seniors' number in the ratio, to get 8 and then multiplying that by 3.
8. (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
9. (d) £200 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total paid by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the most expensive item. Working: 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 parts, £400 ÷ 10 = £40 for one part, and the most expensive item is 5 parts, so 5 × £40 = £200. Answer: £200. The distractors: £40 is the value of one part; £80 is the 2-part item, the cheapest of the three; £120 is the 3-part item.
10. (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
11. (b) −2 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12, so the calculation becomes −12 + 10 = −2. Answer: −2. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 3 × 4 + 10 = 22; −42 comes from adding before multiplying, giving (4 + 10) × (−3) = 14 × (−3) = −42; −22 comes from adding 12 and 10 and then writing a minus sign in front of the total, instead of moving 10 places up from −12.
12. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
13. (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.
14. (d) −1.7 — Since the numbers have different signs, find the difference between their sizes: 4.5 − 2.8 = 1.7, then keep the sign of the number further from zero. So −4.5 + 2.8 = −1.7. A candidate who drops the negative sign gets 1.7. A candidate who adds the magnitudes instead of finding the difference gets −(4.5 + 2.8) = −7.3. A candidate who takes the smaller digit from the larger in the tenths column, doing 8 − 5 = 3 instead of borrowing to make 15 − 8 = 7, gets 2.3 and so −2.3.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (b) £20 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the amount by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then take the parts belonging to the person asked about. Working: 1 + 2 = 3 parts, £60 ÷ 3 = £20 for one part, and Isla has 1 part. Answer: £20. The distractors: £40 is the 2-part share, which belongs to her brother; £30 comes from reading 1:2 as one part out of two and halving the £60; £120 comes from multiplying the £60 by 2 instead of dividing it into 3 parts.
19. (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.
20. (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.