✏️ Paper 1 non-calculator warm-up — Foundation

Answer key

1. (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
2. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
3. (d) 140 — Method: round each number to the nearest 10, then add the rounded values. Working: 89 rounds to 90 (nearest 10) and 52 rounds to 50 (nearest 10). 90 + 50 = 140. Answer: 140. 141 is the exact value of 89 + 52, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 130 comes from rounding 89 down to 80 instead of up to the nearest 10, 90. 150 comes from rounding 52 up to 60 instead of down to the nearest 10, 50.
4. (c) 2/3 — Method: fractions with the same denominator are added by adding the numerators and leaving the denominator alone, because the parts are already the same size. Working: 1/3 + 1/3 has numerators 1 + 1 = 2 and the denominator stays as 3, giving 2/3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 2/6 comes from adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 1 + 1 over 3 + 3; 2/9 comes from adding the numerators but multiplying the denominators, 1 + 1 over 3 × 3; 1/9 comes from multiplying throughout instead of adding, 1 × 1 over 3 × 3.
5. (a) £177.60 — Total raised = 240 × £1.85 = £444.00. The hospital receives 40% of this: £444.00 × 0.4 = £177.60. A candidate who works out the remaining 60% instead of the 40% given away gets £266.40. A candidate who forgets to find the percentage and gives the full total gets £444.00. A candidate who halves 40% by mistake and uses 20% gets £88.80.
6. (c) 9/10 — Method: write the decimal over 10 using its one decimal place. Working: 0.9 = 9/10, which is already in its simplest form since 9 and 10 share no common factor. Answer: 9/10. The student's fraction, 9/100, comes from always writing the denominator as 100, regardless of how many decimal places the number actually has. 9 comes from dropping the decimal point altogether and treating 0.9 as the whole number 9. 1/9 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
7. (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
8. (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.
9. (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
10. (c) 0.75 — Method: a fraction means the numerator divided by the denominator, and carrying out that division gives the decimal. Working: 3 ÷ 4 is worked out by writing 3 as 3.00; 4 divides into 30 tenths 7 times with 2 tenths left over, and 4 divides into the remaining 20 hundredths exactly 5 times, giving 7 tenths and 5 hundredths. Answer: 0.75. The distractors: 0.34 comes from writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point instead of dividing; 0.7 comes from adding the numerator and the denominator to get 7 and reading that as seven tenths; 0.25 comes from converting the quarter that is left over rather than the three quarters the question asks about.
11. (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.
12. (d) 2 hours — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round the distance first and then divide by the speed. Working: 95 km rounds to 100 km, and 100 ÷ 50 = 2; the speed is in kilometres per hour, so the answer is a number of hours. Answer: 2 hours. The distractors: 1 hour comes from rounding the distance down to 50 km to match the speed, so that the journey looks like a single hour of driving; 30 minutes comes from dividing the speed by the distance, 50 ÷ 100, instead of the distance by the speed; 1 hour 54 minutes is the exact time, 95 ÷ 50 = 1.9 hours, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
13. (a) £20,000 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the profit by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the partner asked about. Working: 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 parts, £48,000 ÷ 12 = £4,000 for one part, and that partner has 5 parts, so 5 × £4,000 = £20,000. Answer: £20,000. The distractors: £4,000 is the value of one part; £12,000 is the 3-part share; £16,000 is the 4-part share, which is what a candidate reaches by assuming the biggest share must go with the number written last in the ratio.
14. (d) 21 — Add the parts: 5 + 3 = 8. Divide the total by the number of parts: 56 ÷ 8 = 7, so one part is worth 7 counters. Blue has 3 parts: 3 × 7 = 21. (35 is the number of red counters, using 5 parts instead of 3. 28 comes from splitting 56 counters in half instead of in the ratio 5:3. 7 is the value of one part — the number of blue counters is 3 lots of this, not just one.)
15. (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.
16. (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
17. (d) 30 — Method: 50% is one half, so 50% of a quantity is the quantity divided by 2. Working: 60 ÷ 2 = 30. Answer: 30. The distractors: 120 comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing; 3000 comes from multiplying by 50 without dividing by 100; 6 comes from finding 10% instead of 50%.
18. (d) 25% — Method: to convert a decimal to a percentage, multiply by 100. Working: 0.25 × 100 = 25. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 0.25% comes from writing a percent sign after the decimal without multiplying; 2.5% comes from multiplying by 10 instead of 100; 250% comes from multiplying by 1000.
19. (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.
20. (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.