✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.)
2. (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.
3. (b) 24 — Method: let one part of the ratio be worth x, write both groups in terms of x, and use the fact that the two groups end up equal. Working: the boys are 3x and the girls are 4x; after the 6 boys join, 3x + 6 = 4x, so x = 6; the girls are 4 parts, so 4 × 6 = 24. Answer: 24 girls. The distractors: 18 is the number of boys before the 6 join, which is 3 × 6; 30 comes from adding the 6 new members to the girls as well as to the boys; 42 is the total number of members in the choir before the 6 boys join, the 18 boys and the girls together.
4. (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
5. (a) 120 — For the lowest common multiple, take each prime that appears in either factorisation, raised to the higher power. In 2³ × 3 and 2² × 3 × 5, the prime 2 appears with power 3 in one and power 2 in the other — take the higher, 2³; the prime 3 appears with the same power in both, 3¹; and the prime 5 appears only in the second factorisation, so use 5¹. Multiplying these, 2³ × 3 × 5, gives 120. Taking the lower power of 2 instead of the higher, and leaving out 5 altogether, gives the highest common factor, 12, instead. Multiplying the two original numbers together, 24 × 60, gives 1440, which double-counts every shared prime factor. Assuming the lowest common multiple is simply the larger of the two numbers gives 60, but 60 is not a multiple of 24 — 60 ÷ 24 does not divide exactly. So the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60 is 120.
6. (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
7. (a) 9:11 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor. Working: the factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 18, and the factors of 22 are 1, 2, 11 and 22, so the highest common factor is 2; 18 ÷ 2 = 9 and 22 ÷ 2 = 11. Answer: 9:11. The distractors: 11:9 comes from dividing both parts correctly but writing them the wrong way round, so it describes 22 to 18 rather than 18 to 22; 9:22 comes from dividing only the first part by 2 and leaving the second part untouched; 9:13 comes from subtracting 9 from each part instead of dividing, since 18 − 9 = 9 and 22 − 9 = 13, and subtracting the same amount from both parts does not give an equivalent ratio.
8. (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
9. (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.
10. (c) £70 — Method: 20% of an amount is 20/100 of it; a reliable route is to find 10% by dividing by 10 and then double it. Working: 10% of £350 is £350 ÷ 10 = £35, and 20% is twice as much, £35 × 2 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £35 comes from finding 10% and stopping there; £17.50 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out £350 ÷ 20 = £17.50; £280 comes from taking 20% off the money raised rather than finding 20% of it, giving £350 ÷ 5 = £70 and then £350 − £70 = £280.
11. (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.
12. (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
13. (c) 0.94 — Method: a fraction is written as a decimal by making the denominator a power of ten, because the decimal places record tenths, hundredths and thousandths. Working: 50 × 2 = 100, so the numerator must also be multiplied by 2, giving 47 × 2 = 94 and the equivalent fraction 94/100; 94 hundredths is written with two digits after the decimal point. Answer: 0.94. The distractors: 0.47 comes from treating the denominator as though it were already 100 and writing the digits of the numerator straight after the point; 4.7 comes from dividing 47 by 10 instead of by 50; 0.094 comes from multiplying the denominator by 20 to reach 1000 but the numerator by only 2, giving 94/1000.
14. (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
15. (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
16. (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.
17. (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
18. (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.
19. (d) 36 — To find 3/8 of 96, divide by the denominator and multiply by the numerator: 96 ÷ 8 = 12, and 12 × 3 = 36. Dividing 96 by the numerator instead of the denominator, 96 ÷ 3 = 32, uses the wrong part of the fraction. Using 3/4 instead of 3/8, perhaps misreading the denominator, gives 96 × 3/4 = 72. Finding 96 ÷ 8 = 12 correctly but forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3 leaves just 12 as the final answer.
20. (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.