✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (a) 75% — Method: to express one quantity as a percentage of another, divide the part by the whole and multiply by 100. Working: 18 ÷ 24 = 0.75, and 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%. The distractors: 25% is the percentage she got wrong, 6 out of 24; 133% comes from dividing the whole by the part, 24 ÷ 18; 18% comes from writing the number of correct answers with a percent sign.
4. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
5. (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.
6. (b) −18 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−4) × 3 = −12, so the calculation becomes (−6) + (−12) = −18. Answer: −18. The distractors: −30 comes from adding first and multiplying afterwards, giving (−6 + −4) × 3 = −10 × 3 = −30; 6 comes from treating (−4) × 3 as +12 on the grounds that a minus sign makes a product positive, giving −6 + 12 = 6; 18 comes from ignoring both minus signs and working out 6 + 4 × 3 = 18.
7. (a) £6 — 10% of £40 is £4, and 5% of £40 is half of that, £2. Adding these gives 15% of £40 = £4 + £2 = £6. Finding only the 10% part and stopping there gives £4. Finding only the 5% part and stopping there gives £2. Multiplying 40 by 15 without dividing by 100 gives £600, which treats the percentage as if it were a whole number multiplier.
8. (b) 5:8 — The mix has 5 parts sand and 3 parts cement, so 5 + 3 = 8 parts in total. Sand to total is 5 : 8, and since the highest common factor of 5 and 8 is 1, this is already in its simplest form. Giving 5 : 3 answers sand to cement, not sand to the total mix. Giving 3 : 8 is cement to total, the wrong part of the mix. Giving 8 : 5 has the total and the sand swapped round.
9. (b) 20 — Method: check a calculator answer by replacing the percentage with a simple fraction — 25% is one quarter, so the calculation becomes a division by 4. Working: 80 ÷ 4 = 20, and the calculator answer of 320 is 80 × 4, which is what happens when the amount is multiplied by 4 instead of divided by it; a quarter of an amount must be smaller than the amount. Answer: 20. The distractors: 25 comes from writing the percentage itself down as the answer; 16 comes from dividing by 5 instead of by 4, which finds 20% rather than 25%; 3.2 comes from working out 80 ÷ 25 instead of a quarter of 80.
10. (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
11. (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.
12. (d) 1/4 — Method: count the digits after the decimal point to choose a denominator that is a power of ten, then cancel the fraction by the highest common factor of the numerator and the denominator. Working: 0.25 has two digits after the point, so 0.25 is 25 hundredths and can be written as 25/100; the highest common factor of 25 and 100 is 25, and 25 ÷ 25 = 1 with 100 ÷ 25 = 4. Answer: 1/4. The distractors: 2/5 comes from reading the two digits after the point as a numerator and a denominator and writing 2 over 5; 1/25 comes from putting 1 over the digits after the point, as though 0.25 meant one twenty-fifth; 1/40 comes from miscounting the decimal places and using a denominator of 1000, giving 25/1000, which cancels by 25 to 1/40.
13. (b) 11 — Method: roots and the multiplication are worked out before the addition and subtraction, and what is left is then worked through from left to right. Working: √144 = 12, √25 = 5 and 2 × 3 = 6, so the calculation becomes 12 − 6 + 5, which gives 6 + 5 = 11. Answer: 11. The distractors: 1 comes from carrying out the addition before the subtraction, giving 12 − (6 + 5) = 12 − 11 = 1; 35 comes from working from left to right with no priority, giving 12 − 2 = 10, then 10 × 3 = 30 and 30 + 5 = 35; 7 comes from combining the two roots as √(144 + 25) = √169 = 13 and then subtracting the product, giving 13 − 6 = 7.
14. (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.
15. (b) (2 + 3) × 5 − 1 — 2 + 3 = 5, then 5 × 5 = 25, then 25 − 1 = 24, so the brackets belong around 2 + 3. Placing them around 5 − 1 instead gives 5 − 1 = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, then 2 + 12 = 14. Leaving the multiplication bracketed instead changes nothing, because it already had priority: 3 × 5 = 15, then 2 + 15 = 17, then 17 − 1 = 16. Bracketing both 2 + 3 and 5 − 1 uses two pairs instead of the one asked for: 2 + 3 = 5, 5 − 1 = 4, then 5 × 4 = 20.
16. (b) 8/5 — The reciprocal of a fraction a/b is b/a — swap the numerator and denominator. So the reciprocal of 5/8 is 8/5. A candidate who wrote 5/8 gave the original fraction, not its reciprocal. A candidate who worked out 1 − 5/8 = 3/8 confused 'reciprocal' with subtracting from 1. A candidate who wrote −8/5 inverted the fraction correctly but introduced an unnecessary sign change.
17. (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
18. (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.
19. (d) 3,200,000 — 1 million = 1,000,000, so 3.2 million = 3.2 × 1,000,000 = 3,200,000. A candidate who moves the decimal point one place too many gets 32,000,000. A candidate who moves it one place too few gets 320,000. A candidate who writes the .2 as extra thousands instead of hundred-thousands gets 3,002,000.
20. (b) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.