⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 5 — For any regular polygon, the order of rotational symmetry is always equal to the number of sides, which is also equal to the number of lines of symmetry. Since this polygon has 5 lines of symmetry, it has 5 sides, so its order of rotational symmetry is 5. 4 comes from subtracting one from the number of sides by mistake. 6 comes from adding one to the number of sides by mistake. 10 comes from doubling the number of lines of symmetry instead of using it directly.
3. (a) Similar, but AAA alone does not prove congruence — Three equal corresponding angles (AAA) show that the two triangles are similar — the same shape — but says nothing about their size, so it does not prove congruence. They could be congruent, or one could simply be an enlargement of the other; without matching side lengths, congruence is not established, so 'congruent because AAA proves congruence' is wrong. Equal angles do not force equal sides — a triangle can be enlarged to any size while keeping the same angles, so that option is also wrong. Something CAN be said here — that the triangles are similar — so 'no relationship can be determined' is wrong too.
4. (c) 2.6 × 10⁵ — In standard form, A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10. Moving the decimal point in 260,000 to just after the 2 gives A = 2.6, and the decimal point moved 5 places, so 260,000 = 2.6 × 10⁵. A candidate who wrote 26 × 10⁴ used a value of A outside the required range, even though it has the same overall value. A candidate who wrote 2.6 × 10⁶ counted one place too many when moving the decimal point. A candidate who wrote 0.26 × 10⁶ used a value of A below 1, again outside the required range.
5. (c) 3x + 4y — Collect the x terms: 5x − 2x = 3x. Collect the y terms: 3y + y = 4y. So 5x + 3y − 2x + y = 3x + 4y. A candidate who subtracts the y terms instead of adding them (3y − y) gets 3x + 2y. A candidate who adds 2x instead of subtracting it (5x + 2x) gets 7x + 4y. A candidate who wrongly combines the x and y terms into a single term gets 6xy.
6. (a) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
7. (a) 8/5 — Scaling down from 8 people to 5 people uses the multiplier 5/8. To reverse this and scale back up from 5 people to 8 people, use the reciprocal of that multiplier: flip 5/8 to get 8/5. 5/8 comes from using the forward (scaling down) multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from writing the difference in people (8 − 5 = 3) over 5, instead of using the reciprocal of 5/8. 25/64 comes from multiplying the forward multiplier by itself (5/8 × 5/8), instead of finding its reciprocal.
8. (b) $\binom{-6}{10}$ — Translating twice by the same vector doubles both components: 2 × $\binom{-3}{5}$ = $\binom{-6}{10}$. $\binom{-3}{5}$ forgets to double the vector at all, giving only one translation's worth. $\binom{-9}{15}$ trebles the vector instead of doubling it. $\binom{-6}{5}$ doubles only the top number and forgets to double the bottom number.
9. (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.
10. (c) 5 — Method: call the number of years ago t, take t off both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: t years ago the father was 40 − t and Ethan was 10 − t, so 40 − t = 7(10 − t); expanding gives 40 − t = 70 − 7t, adding 7t to both sides gives 40 + 6t = 70, subtracting 40 gives 6t = 30, and dividing by 6 gives t = 5. Checking: five years ago the father was 35 and Ethan was 5, and 35 = 7 × 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 35 comes from finding the right moment but giving the father's age at that time instead of the number of years; 30 comes from using Ethan's present age on the right-hand side, 40 − t = 7 × 10, which gives t = −30 and is then written as 30; 24 comes from reaching 6t = 30 correctly and subtracting 6 instead of dividing by 6.
11. (b) bisect the angle between the two lines — The points equidistant from two straight lines that meet lie on the angle bisector of the angle between them — every point on a bisector is the same perpendicular distance from each line, which is exactly what the angle bisector construction produces. "construct the perpendicular bisector of the two lines" confuses the bisector of a line SEGMENT between two points with the bisector of an ANGLE between two lines — a different construction for a different kind of equidistance. "construct a perpendicular from the crossing point" only gives one new line at 90° to one of the originals, not the points equidistant from both. "draw a circle centred at the crossing point" gives points a fixed distance from the crossing point, not points equidistant from the two lines.
12. (a) 225 — Method: find the interior angle of the regular octagon, then subtract it from 360° to find the reflex angle at the same vertex, since the interior angle and the reflex angle together make a full turn. Working: there are 8 − 2 = 6 triangles' worth of angle in the octagon, so the interior angle = 6 × 180 ÷ 8 = 135; reflex angle = 360 − 135 = 225. Answer: 225°. A candidate who stops after finding the interior angle gives 135. A candidate who works out the exterior angle instead, 360 ÷ 8 = 45, gives 45. A candidate who subtracts the exterior angle from 360° instead of the interior angle, working out 360 − 45, gets 315.