⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 1.3 — The gradient of a distance-time graph gives the speed. Difference in speed = 4.5 − 3.2 = 1.3 km/h. A student who subtracts the speeds the wrong way round, 3.2 − 4.5, gets −1.3. A student who adds the two speeds instead of comparing them gets 7.7. A student who multiplies the two gradients gets 14.4.
2. (b) 0.22 km — The real one-way distance is 4.4 × 2500 = 11000 cm. Converting units: 11000 ÷ 100 = 110 m, and 110 ÷ 1000 = 0.11 km. Since the jogger runs there and back, the total distance is 0.11 × 2 = 0.22 km. 0.11 km comes from working out only the one-way distance and forgetting the return journey. 220 km comes from correctly doubling the one-way distance in metres, 110 × 2 = 220, but leaving it mislabelled as kilometres instead of converting metres to kilometres. 110 km comes from working out only the one-way distance in metres, 110, and mislabelling it as kilometres.
3. (b) trapezium — A quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides is a trapezium; field ABCD has AB parallel to DC and no other pair of parallel sides, so trapezium is correct. Parallelogram requires BOTH pairs of opposite sides to be parallel, but the plan says only AB and DC are parallel. Rhombus requires all four sides to be equal in length, which is not stated here. A kite is defined by two pairs of adjacent equal sides, not by having a pair of parallel sides, so it does not match this description either.
4. (d) 50 — Speed = distance ÷ time, so 150 ÷ 3 = 50 km/h. (450 comes from multiplying 150 by 3 instead of dividing. 153 comes from adding 150 and 3. 147 comes from subtracting 3 from 150 — none of these use the correct compound-unit calculation, distance ÷ time.)
5. (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
6. (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
7. (c) 10 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the subtraction. Working: 4 × 2 = 8, so the calculation becomes 18 − 8 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 28 comes from working from left to right, giving (18 − 4) × 2 = 14 × 2 = 28; −10 comes from subtracting the 18 from the 8 rather than the 8 from the 18, giving 8 − 18 = −10; 12 comes from reading 4 × 2 as 4 + 2 = 6 and then working out 18 − 6 = 12.
8. (a) £102 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio, then work out each group's share before comparing them. Working: the ratio 5:2 has 5 + 2 = 7 parts, so one part is £238 ÷ 7 = £34. Adults donate 5 × £34 = £170 and children donate 2 × £34 = £68, so adults donate £170 − £68 = £102 more than children. So the difference is £102. Distractor £68 is only the children's donation, without finding the difference. Distractor £170 is only the adults' donation, without finding the difference. Distractor £136 comes from doubling the children's donation instead of subtracting it from the adults' donation.
9. (b) 13 — The total is 50, and the two known parts are 22 (tea) and 15 (coffee), so 50 − 22 − 15 = 13 hot chocolates. Choosing 28 comes from 50 − 22, subtracting only the tea and forgetting the coffee. Choosing 35 comes from 50 − 15, subtracting only the coffee and forgetting the tea. Choosing 37 comes from 22 + 15, which finds how many drinks were tea or coffee, not the number left over for hot chocolate.
10. (b) 6/25 — The probability of winning on any one spin is 2/5, and the probability of losing on any one spin is 3/5. Since the spins are independent, multiply the probability of winning on the first spin by the probability of losing on the second spin: 2/5 × 3/5 = 6/25. A candidate who answers 4/25 has used the winning probability for both spins, 2/5 × 2/5. A candidate who answers 9/25 has used the losing probability for both spins, 3/5 × 3/5. A candidate who answers 3/10 has treated the spins as if they were dependent, reducing the second spin's denominator to 4.
11. (a) 15 km/h — Speed = distance ÷ time, so 45 ÷ 3 = 15 km/h. Working out 45 × 3 = 135 multiplies distance and time together instead of dividing. Working out 45 + 3 = 48 and 45 − 3 = 42 both combine the two values by addition or subtraction, which does not give a speed at all. The cyclist's average speed is 15 km/h.
12. (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.