⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) x = 4 — Method: undo the addition of 4 first, then undo the multiplication by 6. Working: subtracting 4 from both sides gives 6x = 24, and dividing both sides by 6 gives x = 4. Checking: 6 × 4 + 4 = 28. Answer: x = 4. The distractors: x = 24 comes from stopping at 6x = 24 and writing 24 as the value of x; x = 18 comes from subtracting 6 from 24 instead of dividing by 6; x = 144 comes from multiplying 24 by 6 instead of dividing by 6.
2. (b) 14 — Substitute n=4 into 3n+2: 3×4+2=14. A candidate who adds 3 and n instead of multiplying would compute 3+4+2=9. A candidate who substitutes the wrong term number, n=3, would reach 3×3+2=11. A candidate who forgets to add the constant term would compute just 3×4=12.
3. (a) 3/13 — Vegetables are 9 of the 9 + 4 = 13 parts, so vegetables are 9/13 of the plot. Potatoes are a third of the vegetable section, so potatoes are 1/3 of 9/13, which is 9/39, simplifying to 3/13, of the whole plot. 9/13 comes from stopping after finding the fraction of the plot that is vegetables, without taking the further third for potatoes. 1/3 gives the fraction of the vegetable section that is potatoes, not the fraction of the whole plot. 4/39 comes from taking a third of the flowers' fraction, 4/13, instead of the vegetables' fraction.
4. (a) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
5. (b) x = y/3 − 2 — The bracket containing x has been multiplied by 3, so divide both sides by 3 first, which gives y/3 = x + 2. Subtracting 2 from both sides then leaves y/3 − 2 = x, so x = y/3 − 2. Taking the 2 away before dividing gives (y − 2)/3, which divides the 2 by 3 as well, although the 2 was never divided in the original formula. Adding 2 rather than subtracting it gives y/3 + 2, and multiplying by 3 instead of dividing gives 3y − 2.
6. (d) 1/2 — Method: since the fractions already share a denominator, add only the numerators and keep the denominator the same. Working: 3/8 + 1/8 = 4/8 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Zoe's method, adding the denominators too, gives 4/16 = 1/4. 4/9 comes from adding the numerators correctly to get 4, but then building the denominator by adding the 8 of the first fraction to the 1 of the second (8 + 1 = 9), mixing a denominator with a numerator. 3/8 comes from ignoring the second fraction and simply restating the first one.
7. (c) (6, 2) — Method: add the vector's components to the point's coordinates, x-component to x, y-component to y. Working: A′ = (2 + 4, 3 + (−1)) = (6, 2). Options: (6, 4) comes from adding the size of the y-component, 1, instead of subtracting it; (1, 7) comes from swapping the components, adding the y-component (−1) to the x-coordinate and the x-component (4) to the y-coordinate; (−2, 4) comes from reversing the sign of both components, using the vector (−4, 1) instead of (4, −1). Answer: (6, 2).
8. (c) 4n + 3 — Method: use the given number of extra tiles per pattern as the coefficient of n, then find the constant that fits pattern 1. Working: each pattern adds 4 tiles, so the expression has the form 4n + c. Substituting n = 1: 4(1) + c = 7, so c = 3. Answer: the number of tiles in pattern n is 4n + 3. The value 4n comes from leaving out the constant c altogether. The value 4n + 7 comes from using pattern 1's total, 7, as the constant directly instead of subtracting the difference first. The value 7n + 4 comes from swapping the roles of the number of tiles in pattern 1 and the number added each time.
9. (a) A smaller circle — Since the cutting plane is parallel to the circular base, the cross-section is also a circle, but smaller than the base because the cone narrows as it rises towards the apex, so 'a smaller circle' is correct. 'A triangle' wrongly describes the outline seen from the side of the cone, not a horizontal cross-section. 'An ellipse' would only result from a cut made at an angle to the base, not one parallel to it. 'The same size circle as the base' wrongly ignores that the cone tapers, so any parallel cross-section above the base must be smaller.
10. (b) Right angle, equal hypotenuse, one more side — RHS requires a right angle in each triangle, equal hypotenuses, and one further pair of equal sides, so 'right angle, equal hypotenuse, one more side' is correct. 'Right angle, hypotenuse, one more angle' is wrong because it asks for an extra equal angle instead of an extra equal side, which RHS does not check. 'Two sides and the angle between them' describes SAS, not RHS, so it is wrong. 'Right angle and all three sides equal' describes SSS with an extra right-angle condition, asking for more information than RHS actually needs, so it is wrong.
11. (d) √3 — tan 60° = √3 — one of the exact values you need to know without a calculator. √3/2 is the exact value of sin 60° and of cos 30°, not tan 60°. 1/√3 is the exact value of tan 30°, the reciprocal-angle case. 3 comes from squaring √3 instead of reading off tan 60° itself.
12. (c) Yes — with an estimate of 320, above the 250 limit. — Method: scale the sample proportion up to the whole batch to get an estimate, then compare that estimate with the 250 limit to reach a decision. Working: in the sample, 4 out of 50 boards are faulty, a proportion of 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08. Applying that proportion to the batch of 4,000 gives an estimate of 0.08 × 4000 = 320 faulty boards. Since 320 is more than 250, the factory should scrap the batch. Inverting the proportion, 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5, and treating that as a percentage of the batch, 12.5% × 4000 = 500, still gives 'yes' but from the wrong fraction, so it overstates the estimate. Comparing the raw number of faulty boards found in the sample, 4, directly with the 250 limit skips the scaling up to the batch altogether, and 4 is nowhere near 250, so that route wrongly says 'no'. Dividing the batch by the sample size, 4000 ÷ 50 = 80, finds how many samples of 50 fit into the batch but stops before multiplying by the 4 faulty boards found, so it also wrongly says 'no'. Always find the proportion in the sample first, scale it up to the whole batch, and only then compare the estimate with the limit given.