⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
2. (c) 6 cm — For a parallelogram, area = base × height, so height = area ÷ base = 54 ÷ 9 = 6 cm. 12 cm comes from using the triangle's reverse formula, height = 2 × area ÷ base, which does not apply to a parallelogram. 45 cm comes from subtracting the base from the area, 54 − 9, instead of dividing. 486 cm comes from multiplying the area by the base, 54 × 9, instead of dividing.
3. (c) £338.69 — To increase by 12% each year, multiply by 1.12 twice. £270 × 1.12 × 1.12 = £338.688, which rounds to £338.69 (nearest penny, since the third decimal place is 8). £334.80 comes from treating the two 12% increases as a single flat 24% increase applied once instead of compounding: £270 × 1.24 = £334.80. £302.40 comes from applying the 12% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £270 × 1.12 = £302.40. £338.68 comes from rounding £338.688 down to the nearest penny instead of up.
4. (c) VW — Method: within one circle a chord's distance from the centre is fixed by its length, because a chord passing nearer the centre cuts further across the circle; so the chord that lies closest to the centre is simply the longest one listed. Working: the four lengths are 6 cm, 10 cm, 14 cm and 15 cm. Placing them in order, the greatest is 15 cm, and that length belongs to VW, so VW lies closest to the centre. Answer: VW. The distractors: PQ comes from reversing the rule and taking the shortest chord to be the one tucked nearest the centre; TU comes from knowing that the very longest chord is a diameter, deciding that such a chord passes through the centre rather than lying close to it, ruling the 15 cm chord out on that ground and taking the next longest; RS comes from reading 'closest to the centre' as 'nearest the middle of the list of lengths' and picking a middling value.
5. (b) No, because their gradients are 2 and −2 — Method: two lines are parallel exactly when their gradients are equal as signed numbers, so m is read from each equation written in the form y = mx + c and the two are compared. Working: y = 2x + 1 has gradient 2 and y = −2x + 3 has gradient −2; those are not equal, so the lines are not parallel, and indeed one slopes upwards while the other slopes downwards. Answer: No, because their gradients are 2 and −2. The distractors: saying yes because both gradients have size 2 comes from comparing the sizes of the gradients and ignoring their signs; saying yes because the gradients add to 0 comes from using a sum of zero as the test for parallel lines instead of equality of gradients; saying no because the y-intercepts are 1 and 3 reaches the right verdict by the wrong route, since the intercepts decide where the lines sit rather than whether they are parallel.
6. (d) 7/3 — The film's length is being described, so it goes on the top, and the documentary's length goes on the bottom: 105/45. The highest common factor of 105 and 45 is 15, so divide both parts by it: 105 ÷ 15 = 7 and 45 ÷ 15 = 3. The fraction is 7/3. Because the film is longer than the documentary the fraction is greater than 1, which is exactly what a top-heavy fraction records.
7. (c) 3 — Gradient = (change in y) ÷ (change in x) = (11 − 5) ÷ (4 − 2) = 6 ÷ 2 = 3. A candidate who puts the change in x over the change in y instead would get 2 ÷ 6 = 1/3. A candidate who subtracts the y-coordinates in the reverse order, but not the x-coordinates, would get (5 − 11) ÷ (4 − 2) = −3. A candidate who adds the coordinates instead of subtracting them would get (11 + 5) ÷ (4 + 2) = 16/6 = 8/3.
8. (a) 28 cm — Method: the perimeter is the total distance round the outside, and a rhombus has four sides of equal length, so the perimeter is 4 × the side length. Working: 4 × 7 = 28. Answer: 28 cm. The distractors: 14 cm comes from 2 × 7, adding only one pair of sides and forgetting that a rhombus has two pairs; 49 cm comes from working out 7 × 7, which is the calculation for the area of a square rather than a distance round the outside; 11 cm comes from adding the side length to the number of sides, 7 + 4, instead of multiplying them.
9. (b) 3 — Method: rearrange the equation into the form y = mx + c first, then read off the gradient. Working: dividing 4y = 12x + 20 by 4 gives y = 3x + 5, so the gradient is 3. The value 12 comes from reading the coefficient of x before dividing the equation by 4. The value 20 comes from using the constant term of the unsimplified equation instead of the gradient. The value 5 comes from finding the y-intercept, 20 / 4 = 5, and giving that instead of the gradient.
10. (c) 100√3 cm — The height is opposite the 60° angle, so height = 2 × sin 60° = 2 × √3/2 = √3 m. Converting to centimetres: √3 m = 100√3 cm. '√3 cm' forgets to convert the answer from metres to centimetres. '200√3 cm' comes from mis-recalling sin 60° as √3 instead of √3/2, dropping the denominator of the exact value: 2 × √3 = 2√3 m = 200√3 cm. '50√3 cm' comes from halving the ladder's length before multiplying by sin 60°, instead of using the full 2 m.
11. (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.
12. (d) Yes, because 45 ÷ 360 = 1/8, and this fraction applies to any radius. — Priti is correct: 45 ÷ 360 = 1/8, and because sector area = (angle ÷ 360) × full circle area, this fraction depends only on the angle, not on the radius, so it holds for every circle. (The statement giving 45 ÷ 360 = 1/6 comes from an arithmetic slip when simplifying the fraction; the statement that the fraction depends on the radius is wrong because the radius cancels out of the angle fraction in the sector-area formula; the statement adding that it only works for this particular radius is wrong because the 1/8 fraction is true for every radius, not a special case.)