⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) where the angle bisector meets the posts' perpendicular bisector — Being equidistant from the two walls means lying on the angle bisector of the corner; being equidistant from the two posts means lying on the perpendicular bisector of the 4 m segment joining them. A single point satisfying both conditions is wherever those two loci cross. "where the angle bisector meets the line joining the posts" uses the straight line between the posts instead of its perpendicular bisector — a point on that line is not generally equidistant from both posts. "the perpendicular bisector of the posts, alone" satisfies only the posts condition, ignoring the walls entirely. "the angle bisector of the corner, alone" satisfies only the walls condition, ignoring the posts entirely.
2. (c) Neither causes the other; sunshine links both. — Both ice cream sales and sunburn cases tend to rise on hot, sunny days, so the amount of sunshine is a third factor linked to both — neither variable causes the other. Saying ice cream sales cause the sunburn assumes a causal link in one direction that the correlation alone cannot establish. Saying sunburn cases cause the ice cream sales assumes the reverse causal link, which is no more justified. Saying a strong correlation always means causation is the general error this question is testing: correlation, however strong, does not by itself prove that one variable causes the other.
3. (b) 4 — Method: subtract the constant term from both sides first, then divide by the coefficient of x. Working: 4x = 24 − 8 = 16; x = 16 ÷ 4 = 4. Answer: x = 4. Priya's 6 comes from dividing 24 by 4 without first subtracting the 8, ignoring the constant term; substituting it back gives 4 × 6 + 8 = 32, not 24, which is why she is wrong. 16 comes from correctly finding 4x = 16 but forgetting to divide by 4. 12 comes from subtracting the coefficient 4 instead of dividing by it: 16 − 4 = 12. 8 comes from correctly finding 4x = 16 but then halving instead of dividing by 4.
4. (b) 3.5 — Method: work out each percentage of its number separately, then subtract the smaller result from the larger one. Working: 45% of 70 = 31.5, and 35% of 80 = 28, so the difference is 31.5 − 28 = 3.5. Answer: 3.5. 11.5 comes from pairing the percentages with the wrong numbers, working out 35% of 70 = 24.5 and 45% of 80 = 36, and finding their difference. 59.5 comes from adding the two correct results, 31.5 + 28, instead of subtracting them. 10 comes from simply subtracting the two percentages themselves, 45 − 35, without applying them to the numbers at all.
5. (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
6. (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
7. (a) x > 4 — Subtract 2x from both sides: 3x − 3 > 9. Add 3 to both sides: 3x > 12. Divide both sides by 3: x > 4. A candidate who subtracts 3 from 9 instead of adding gets 3x > 6, so x > 2. A candidate who divides correctly but wrongly flips the inequality (as if dividing by a negative) gets x < 4. A candidate who multiplies by 3 instead of dividing gets x > 36.
8. (a) 144° — Method: a pie chart shares the 360° at its centre between the categories in proportion to their frequencies, so the angle of a sector is that category's fraction of the total multiplied by 360°. Working: the sector stands for 40 pupils out of 100, which is the fraction 40/100; one pupil is worth 360 ÷ 100 = 3.6°, so 40 pupils are worth 40 × 3.6° = 144°. Answer: 144°, and the answer is an angle in degrees, not a number of pupils. The distractors: 40° comes from sharing out 100 instead of 360, so the percentage is written straight down as a number of degrees; 216° comes from working out the angle for the other 60 pupils, 60 × 3.6°, which is the rest of the pie chart; 180° comes from assuming that the tallest line must stand for half of the pupils and so take half of the chart.
9. (d) 2x + 4 — Method: collect the like terms, which here are the two terms in x, and leave the number term on its own because a number and a term in x are unlike. Working: x + x is one lot of x added to one more lot of x, which is 2x; the 4 has nothing like it to join with, so it is written after the 2x. Answer: 2x + 4. The distractors: x² + 4 comes from multiplying the two x terms instead of adding them; x + 4 comes from treating x + x as a single x, as though the repeated letter counted only once; 6x comes from collecting the unlike terms together, adding 1 + 1 + 4 and attaching the letter to that total.
10. (c) 5 — The front elevation shows one square for every cube visible from the front, column by column: the left-hand column is 2 cubes high, so it contributes 2 squares; the middle column is 2 cubes high, so it contributes 2 more; the right-hand column is 1 cube high, so it contributes 1. The total is 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 squares. "6" comes from drawing a full 3 by 2 rectangle, treating every column as if it reached the greatest height. "4" comes from losing a square from one of the two tall columns, counting 2 + 1 + 1. "3" comes from counting one square per column — the width of the solid — and ignoring the heights altogether.
11. (c) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
12. (c) 151,200 cm² — First find the area in m²: 4.2 × 3.6 = 15.12 m². To convert m² to cm², multiply by 10,000, since 1 m² = 100 cm × 100 cm = 10,000 cm²: 15.12 × 10,000 = 151,200 cm². 15.12 cm² gives the area in m² without converting the units at all. 1,512 cm² multiplies by 100 instead of 10,000, treating the conversion as if it were for a single length rather than an area. 15,120 cm² multiplies by 1,000 instead of 10,000.