⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (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%.
2. (c) y = x² — Method: test a candidate rule against every pair given, not just one — a rule that fits one pair and fails another is not the rule. Working: the outputs 1, 4, 9 rise by 3 and then by 5, so they are not going up in equal steps and the input is not simply multiplied by a fixed number; comparing each output with its own input gives 1 × 1 = 1, 2 × 2 = 4 and 3 × 3 = 9, and all three pairs fit. Answer: y = x². The distractors: y = 3x comes from fitting only the last pair, where 3 × 3 = 9, and reading that 3 as a multiplier; y = 3x − 2 comes from assuming a multiply-then-add rule and using the first step in the outputs, 4 − 1 = 3, as the multiplier — it fits the first two pairs and fails the third; y = 2x comes from fitting only the pair 2 and 4 and reading every output as double its input.
3. (c) 1.6 — The multiplier from tins to pounds is found by dividing the cost by the number of tins: £8 ÷ 5 = 1.6. 0.625 comes from dividing the wrong way round, tins ÷ cost (5 ÷ 8), which is the multiplier from pounds back to tins. 3 comes from subtracting the number of tins from the cost (8 − 5), instead of dividing. 40 comes from multiplying the cost by the number of tins (8 × 5), instead of dividing.
4. (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.
5. (c) 8 — Method: the exterior angles of a polygon add up to 360°, so divide 360° by the size of one exterior angle. Working: 360 ÷ 45 = 8. Answer: 8 sides. A candidate who divides into a half turn instead of a full turn, working out 180 ÷ 45, gets 4. A candidate who reads off the given exterior angle as if it were the number of sides gets 45. A candidate who subtracts instead of dividing, working out 360 − 45, gets 315.
6. (a) 8 × 10² — Method: to multiply numbers written in standard form, multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 4 × 2 = 8 for the coefficients, and −3 + 5 = 2 for the indices; 8 already lies between 1 and 10, so no adjustment is needed. Answer: 8 × 10². The distractors: 6 × 10² comes from adding the coefficients, 4 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 8 × 10⁸ comes from ignoring the minus sign and adding 3 + 5; 8 × 10⁻¹⁵ comes from multiplying the indices, −3 × 5, instead of adding them.
7. (c) 5n + 1 — Method: find the common difference, then use it as the coefficient of n in the position-to-term rule, and find the constant by checking against the first term. Working: the common difference is 5, so the rule has the form 5n + c. Using the 1st term: 5(1) + c = 6, so c = 1. The rule is 5n + 1. Answer: 5n + 1. 5n − 1 uses the correct coefficient but the wrong sign for the constant. 6n comes from using the first term as the coefficient of n instead of the common difference — it matches the 1st term by coincidence but fails from the 2nd term onward. n + 5 swaps the coefficient and the constant around, using the common difference as the constant instead of the coefficient of n.
8. (a) x = 0 gives y = −20: a negative number sold — The y-intercept is the value the line predicts when x = 0: y = 3 × 0 − 20 = −20. A kiosk cannot sell a negative number of ice creams, so this is not a sensible estimate. The 3 in the equation is the gradient, not the intercept, so an option claiming x = 0 gives y = 3 has swapped the two numbers around — substituting x = 0 makes the 3x term equal 0, leaving −20, not 3. The danger of extrapolating to very high temperatures is a real issue with this line, but it is a different issue from the y-intercept, so it does not answer this question. And whether x = 0 could occur on a trading day is beside the point: the model still makes that prediction, and it is the prediction itself, −20, that is impossible.
9. (b) £45.90 — The cost is 18 × £3.45 = £62.10. Profit = £108 − £62.10 = £45.90. A candidate who does not borrow in the tenths column, doing 1 − 0 = 1 instead of borrowing to make 10 − 1 = 9 and so leaving the units as 8 − 2 = 6, gets £46.10. A candidate who adds the cost to the selling price instead of subtracting gets £108 + £62.10 = £170.10. A candidate who gives the cost instead of the profit gets £62.10.
10. (d) 1250 g — There are 1000 g in a kilogram, so 1.25 kg = 1.25 × 1000 = 1250 g. Multiplying by 100 instead of 1000 gives 125 g. Converting only the whole 1 kg and forgetting the extra 0.25 kg gives 1000 g. Treating the 0.25 kg as 25 g instead of 250 g, a quarter of 1000, gives 1025 g.
11. (c) 0.5 — Method: count the favourable outcomes, write them over the total number of equally likely outcomes and then divide to turn the fraction into a decimal. Working: the odd scores are 1, 3 and 5, which is 3 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 3/6, and 3 ÷ 6 = 0.5. Answer: 0.5, the middle of the 0 to 1 probability scale. The distractors: 0.33 comes from listing only 3 and 5 as odd and working out 2 ÷ 6; 0.17 comes from giving the probability of one particular odd score, 1 ÷ 6; 0.3 comes from writing '3 out of 6' as 0.3, reading the 3 straight off as tenths instead of dividing.
12. (c) 3 : 2 — Method: 'A is k times B' means that if B is taken as 1 part then A is k parts, and a ratio in its simplest form is written with whole numbers that have no common factor. Working: taking B as 1, A is 1.5, so A : B = 1.5 : 1; multiplying both parts by 2 clears the decimal and gives 3 : 2, and 3 and 2 share no factor. Answer: 3 : 2. The distractors: 2 : 3 comes from writing B before A, reversing the order the question asks for; 1.5 : 1 is the right relationship but is not in its simplest form, because a ratio in its simplest form uses whole numbers; 3 : 5 comes from comparing A with the combined length rather than with B, since A : (A + B) = 1.5 : 2.5 = 3 : 5.