⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 17 — Substitute a = 3 into 5a + 2: 5 × 3 + 2 = 15 + 2 = 17. 10 comes from treating 5a as 5 + a instead of 5 × a, giving 5 + 3 + 2. 25 comes from adding the 2 to a before multiplying by 5, 5 × (3 + 2). 15 comes from working out 5 × 3 correctly but forgetting to add the 2.
2. (d) 7/20 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.35 has two digits after the point, so it is 35 hundredths and can be written as 35/100; the highest common factor of 35 and 100 is 5, and 35 ÷ 5 = 7 with 100 ÷ 5 = 20. Answer: 7/20. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 7/25 comes from dividing the numerator by 5 but the denominator by 4, using a different factor on the top and on the bottom; 35/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
3. (a) (−1, 1) — Translating by $\binom{−2}{3}$ subtracts 2 from every x-coordinate and adds 3 to every y-coordinate. This gives image vertices (−1, 4), (3, 4), (3, 7) and (−1, 7). The point (−1, 1) is not one of these: it has the correct new x-coordinate (1 − 2 = −1) but keeps the original y-coordinate (1) instead of adding 3, as if only the horizontal part of the vector had been applied.
4. (c) √3/2 — Method: sin 60° comes from half of an equilateral triangle. Cut an equilateral triangle of side 2 down its middle: each half is right-angled, with hypotenuse 2 and base 1, and Pythagoras gives its height as √3 because 2² − 1² = 3. Working: sine is the opposite side over the hypotenuse, the side opposite the 60° angle is the height √3, and the hypotenuse is 2, so sin 60° = √3 ÷ 2. Answer: sin 60° = √3/2. Swapping sine for cosine at this angle gives cos 60° = 1/2; taking the value from the other special triangle, the right-angled isosceles one, gives sin 45° = √2/2; and reading the tangent row instead of the sine row gives tan 60° = √3.
5. (d) £195 — Substituting x = 3 into y = 45x + 60 gives y = 45 × 3 + 60 = 135 + 60 = 195. A candidate who forgets to add the call-out fee would get only 45 × 3 = £135. A candidate who adds the hours to the fee and the rate instead of multiplying would get 45 + 60 + 3 = £108. A candidate who multiplies both the hourly rate and the call-out fee by the number of hours would get 45 × 3 + 60 × 3 = £315.
6. (d) 5 — Method: rearrange the formula to make m the subject, then substitute F = 15.50. Working: F = 3 + 2.5m, so subtracting 3 from both sides gives F − 3 = 2.5m, then dividing by 2.5 gives m = (F − 3) / 2.5. Substituting F = 15.50: m = (15.50 − 3) / 2.5 = 12.50 / 2.5 = 5. The value 6.2 comes from dividing 15.50 by 2.5 without subtracting the fixed £3 first. The value 3.2 comes from dividing first and subtracting afterwards, in the wrong order: (15.50 / 2.5) − 3 = 3.2. The value 7.4 comes from adding £3 instead of subtracting it before dividing: (15.50 + 3) / 2.5 = 7.4.
7. (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
8. (a) £9.00 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ number of hours. £54 ÷ 6 = £9.00 per hour. £324.00 comes from multiplying the pay by the hours instead of dividing (£54 × 6). £0.11 comes from dividing the hours by the pay instead of the pay by the hours (6 ÷ 54). £48.00 comes from subtracting the hours from the pay (£54 − 6) instead of dividing.
9. (d) £6705 — After the first year: £6400 × 1.08 = £6912. After the second year: £6912 × 0.97 = £6704.64, which rounds to £6705 (nearest pound). £6720 comes from treating the +8% and −3% changes as a single net +5% change applied to the original amount instead of applying each change in turn: £6400 × 1.05 = £6720. £6912 comes from applying only the first year's growth and stopping there, without applying the second year's fall. £7104 comes from adding the two percentages together as +11% and applying that to the original amount instead of applying each change to the correct starting amount in turn: £6400 × 1.11 = £7104.
10. (d) RHS — Both triangles have a right angle, their hypotenuses are equal, and one further pair of sides (AB and DE) are equal, exactly the RHS condition, so RHS is correct. SAS needs two sides and the angle between them; here the right angle at B is not between the hypotenuse and AB, so this is not a valid SAS setup, making SAS wrong. SSS needs three pairs of equal sides, but only two sides are given here, so SSS is wrong. ASA needs two angles and the side between them, but only one angle, the right angle, is given, so ASA is wrong.
11. (b) Interpolation — The salary is being estimated for a value of x between 1 and 15, which is inside the range of x-values that were actually plotted, so this is interpolation. Extrapolation would apply if the estimate used a value of x below 1 or above 15, outside the plotted range. Correlation describes the relationship between the two variables, not the reliability of an estimate, and causation describes one variable actually causing a change in the other, which is a different idea altogether — neither is the word being asked for here.
12. (c) No, 90 cm is far outside the heights on the graph — Method: a line of best fit describes the trend only across the stretch of data it was drawn through; predicting beyond that stretch is extrapolation, and nothing in the data supports it. Working: the heights used to draw this line run from 150 cm to 180 cm, all of them Year 10 pupils, while 90 cm is 60 cm below the shortest of them and belongs to a two-year-old child, whose build follows no trend the graph has measured. Substituting anyway gives 0.9 × 90 − 85 = −4, a mass of −4 kg, which cannot exist. Answer: no, because 90 cm is far outside the heights on the graph. The distractors: saying a line of best fit cannot be used to predict at all throws away its main purpose, since a prediction made between the plotted values is perfectly sound; saying the line passes through all 20 points misdescribes a line of best fit, which is drawn to follow the trend of the points and will normally pass through few of them; saying the equation works for any value put into it treats an equation fitted to Year 10 heights as a law of nature, and the mass of −4 kg shows what that assumption produces.