⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (d) 40 miles — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure first, then divide to estimate the daily distance. Working: 830 rounds to 800, and 19 rounds to 20, and 800 ÷ 20 = 40, so the estimate is 40 miles per day. 41.5 miles comes from rounding only the number of days and working out 830 ÷ 20 = 41.5, without rounding the distance too. 830 miles is the total distance for the whole trek, given as the answer without dividing by the number of days at all. 4 miles comes from working out 80 ÷ 20 = 4, misplacing a digit in the rounded distance. Answer: 40 miles.
2. (b) 4/9 — Method: double the butter part of the ratio, keeping flour the same, find the new total, then write butter's part over the new total. Working: the new ratio is flour : butter = 5 : 4, since butter doubles from 2 to 4. New total = 5 + 4 = 9. Fraction of butter = 4/9. Answer: 4/9. 2/9 comes from forgetting to double the butter part and using the original value 2 over the new total of 9. 4/7 comes from doubling the butter part correctly to 4 but keeping the old total of 7 instead of working out the new total. 2/5 comes from using the original ratio 5:2 directly as butter over flour without doubling anything.
3. (b) 120 minutes — Method: find the rate in bottles per minute, then divide the order size by the rate. Working: rate = 810 ÷ 45 = 18 bottles per minute. Time = 2,160 ÷ 18 = 120 minutes. Wrong options: 1,350 minutes comes from subtracting 810 from 2,160 instead of using the rate; 48 minutes comes from dividing the order size by the original time (2,160 ÷ 45) instead of the rate; 108 minutes comes from rounding the rate to 20 bottles per minute before dividing.
4. (a) The median, as the one very large wage does not move it — Method: an average describes a population well when it sits close to most of the values, so compare what each average does when one value lies far from the rest. Working: in order the wages are 420, 440, 460, 480 and 1,500, so the median is the third of the five, £460. The mean uses every wage: 420 + 440 + 460 + 480 + 1,500 = 3,300 and 3,300 ÷ 5 = 660, so the mean is £660. Four of the five people earn less than £660, and the nearest of those four wages is £180 below it, so £660 describes nobody at the garage; £460 sits inside the group of four similar wages. Answer: the median, as the one very large wage does not move it, while that same wage drags the mean £200 above the median. The distractors: saying the median is always larger than the mean is an invented rule, and here the median £460 is smaller than the mean £660; saying the mean is the only average that uses all five wages is true as far as it goes, but using a value and being dragged by it are the same thing when that value is £1,500; saying £660 lies between the smallest and largest wage is true of every mean ever calculated, so it proves nothing about whether this one is typical.
5. (d) y = 4 — Method: substitute x = 6 into y = 24/x: y = 24 ÷ 6 = 4. Distractor origins: y = 18 subtracts instead of dividing (24 − 6 = 18); y = 144 multiplies instead of dividing (24 × 6 = 144); y = 30 adds instead of dividing (24 + 6 = 30).
6. (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 2.
7. (a) 110° — The truss is isosceles, so its two base angles are equal; since the three angles of the triangle add up to 180° and the apex is 40°, each base angle is (180 − 40) ÷ 2 = 70°. The angle between the sloping edge and the joist, extended beyond the base of the truss, sits on a straight line with that 70° base angle, and angles on a straight line add up to 180°, so the required angle is 180 − 70 = 110°. "70°" comes from stopping after finding the base angle and giving it directly, without also using the straight-line fact to find the angle on the OUTSIDE of the truss. "140°" comes from doubling the base angle instead of using the straight-line fact. "20°" comes from taking half of the apex angle (40° ÷ 2), mistaking it for the required angle instead of properly using the triangle's angle sum.
8. (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.
9. (d) 5x ≤ 30 — Method: write the total cost as the cost of one book times the number of books, then turn the limit into an inequality sign; 'at most' allows the limit to be reached but not passed. Working: x books at £5 each cost 5x pounds; that total must not go above £30, and spending exactly £30 is allowed, so the two sides are joined by ≤ and the inequality is 5x ≤ 30. Answer: 5x ≤ 30. The distractors: 5x ≥ 30 comes from reading 'at most' as 'at least', which reverses the condition; x + 5 ≤ 30 comes from adding the price of a book to the number of books instead of multiplying; 5x < 30 comes from reading 'at most £30' as 'less than £30', which wrongly rules out spending the whole £30.
10. (d) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
11. (b) 3 pupils — Method: an expected frequency is the probability multiplied by the number of trials, so multiply the probability by the number of pupils. Working: 30 × 1/10 means finding one tenth of 30, and 30 ÷ 10 = 3. Answer: 3 pupils would be expected to have a nut allergy. The distractors: 27 pupils comes from working out how many are expected NOT to have the allergy, 30 − 3, instead of how many are; 10 pupils comes from reading the 10 in the fraction 1/10 as the number of pupils; 1 pupil comes from reading the numerator of the fraction as the expected number.
12. (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.