💷 Percentages and compound interest

Answer key

1. (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
2. (c) £624.32 — A 4% rise is a multiplier of 1.04, applied once each year. After year 1: 5000 × 1.04 = 5200. After year 2: 5200 × 1.04 = 5408. After year 3: 5408 × 1.04 = 5624.32. The question asks for the interest, not the value of the account, so take away the amount invested at the start: 5624.32 − 5000 = 624.32. The total interest earned is £624.32.
3. (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
4. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
5. (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
6. (c) 200 students — Method: find the percentage who have a brother or a sister, taking care that the students with both are not counted twice, then take that percentage from 100% and apply the result to the 400 students. Working: 25% + 40% = 65%, but the 15% with both has been counted in each of those figures, so 65% − 15% = 50% have a brother or a sister; that leaves 100% − 50% = 50%, and 50% of 400 = 200. Answer: 200 students. The distractors: 260 students is 65% of 400, the number with a brother or a sister when the 15% overlap is counted twice; 140 students comes from taking that same uncorrected 65% away from the 400; 300 students comes from subtracting only the 25% with a brother and ignoring the sisters altogether.
7. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
8. (b) 80% — Percentage = (40 ÷ 50) × 100 = 80%.
9. (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
10. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
11. (c) £2743.60 — Each year the balance is multiplied by 1.03. After the first year: 4000 × 1.03 = 4120. After the second year: 4120 × 1.03 = 4243.60, so that is what Leah takes out. She then spends £1500 of it, which leaves 4243.60 − 1500 = 2743.60. She has £2743.60 left.
12. (a) £85.47 — Value after 2 years: £1200 × 1.035 × 1.035 = £1285.47 (nearest penny). Interest earned = £1285.47 − £1200 = £85.47. £1285.47 is the total value of the account, not the interest earned on top of the original £1200. £84.00 comes from using simple interest instead of compound interest: £1200 × 0.035 × 2 = £84.00. £42.00 comes from working out only the first year's interest and stopping there: £1200 × 0.035 = £42.00.
13. (a) 1/4 — The empty part of the tank is 80 − 60 = 20 litres. As a fraction of the full capacity, this is 20/80, which simplifies to 1/4. Finding the fraction of the tank that is FULL instead of empty, 60/80, simplifies to 3/4 — the wrong quantity for the question asked. Writing the empty amount over the amount remaining instead of over the full capacity, 20/60, simplifies to 1/3. Comparing the empty amount to 100 instead of to the tank's actual capacity of 80, 20/100, gives 1/5.
14. (b) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
15. (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
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. (c) £80 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/9 of a price means dividing that price by 9. Working: £720 ÷ 9 = £80. Answer: £80. The distractors: £6480 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving £720 × 9 = £6480; £640 comes from working out what is left of the £720 once the case is paid for, £720 − £80, instead of the cost of the case itself; £72 comes from dividing by 10 instead of 9, treating one ninth as one tenth.
18. (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
19. (a) 1260 — To increase by 5%, multiply by 1.05 (100% + 5%). 1200 × 1.05 = 1260. 60 comes from working out only the increase (1200 × 0.05) and forgetting to add it to the original population. 1205 comes from adding 5 directly to 1200 instead of 5% of 1200. 1800 comes from multiplying by 1.5, using 50% instead of 5%.
20. (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
21. (b) 3.5 — Method: work out each percentage of its number separately, then subtract the smaller result from the larger one. Working: 45% of 70 = 31.5, and 35% of 80 = 28, so the difference is 31.5 − 28 = 3.5. Answer: 3.5. 11.5 comes from pairing the percentages with the wrong numbers, working out 35% of 70 = 24.5 and 45% of 80 = 36, and finding their difference. 59.5 comes from adding the two correct results, 31.5 + 28, instead of subtracting them. 10 comes from simply subtracting the two percentages themselves, 45 − 35, without applying them to the numbers at all.
22. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.