⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (b) 3.65 ≤ n < 3.75 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means n can be up to half of one decimal place, 0.05, below or above 3.7 before it would round to a different value. This gives a lower bound of 3.7 − 0.05 = 3.65 and an upper bound of 3.7 + 0.05 = 3.75. A value exactly at 3.75 would round up to 3.8, not 3.7, so the upper bound is excluded while the lower bound, 3.65, does still round to 3.7. Writing 3.65 ≤ n ≤ 3.75 wrongly includes 3.75. Writing 3.6 ≤ n < 3.8 uses a whole decimal place, 0.1, either side instead of half of one, 0.05. Writing 3.65 < n < 3.75 wrongly excludes 3.65, which does round to 3.7.
2. (a) x + 3 — Method: "years older" is an addition, and the number of years is added to the age that is known in terms of the letter. Working: Jack's age is x, and Kwame is 3 years older, so Kwame's age is x + 3. Answer: x + 3. The distractors: x − 3 comes from reading "older" as "younger" and subtracting instead of adding; 3x comes from reading "3 years older" as "3 times as old" and multiplying; 3 − x comes from writing the calculation the wrong way round, taking Jack's age from the 3 rather than adding.
3. (d) 6 × 10⁷ — Method: the coefficients and the powers of ten are handled separately — multiply the coefficients, and add the indices because the powers share the base 10. Working: 2 × 3 = 6 for the coefficients, and 10³ × 10⁴ = 10⁷ for the powers; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10⁷. The distractors: 5 × 10⁷ comes from adding the coefficients, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 3 × 4, instead of adding them; 6 × 10¹ comes from subtracting the indices, 4 − 3, which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying.
4. (a) £14224 — Value after 2 years: £15000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £16224. Money left after buying the trailer: £16224 − £2000 = £14224. £14200 comes from treating the two 4% increases as a single flat 8% increase applied once instead of compounding: £15000 × 1.08 = £16200, and £16200 − £2000 = £14200. £13600 comes from applying the 4% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £15000 × 1.04 = £15600, and £15600 − £2000 = £13600. £18224 comes from adding the £2000 instead of subtracting it: £16224 + £2000 = £18224.
5. (a) 1/3 — Method: for two independent spinners, multiply the probability of each separate outcome, but first work out each spinner's own probability correctly, using how many of its equal sections actually carry that result. Working: Spinner A has 2 even numbers, 2 and 4, out of 4 sections, so P(even) = 2/4 = 1/2. Spinner B has 2 red sections out of 3, so P(red) = 2/3. Multiplying gives 1/2 × 2/3, which cancels down to 1/3. Answer: 1/3. Watch out: writing down 1/4 treats Spinner B's two colours as equally likely and uses 1/2 for red, when in fact 2 of its 3 sections are red — the sections are not split evenly between the two colours. Writing down 1/6 undercounts Spinner A's even numbers as just one out of four instead of two. And writing down 5/6 applies the 'at least one' formula, P(A) + P(B) − P(A)×P(B), which answers a different question about EITHER spinner landing the right way, not both together.
6. (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts by the common factor 3a: 6a ÷ 3a = 2 and 9a ÷ 3a = 3, giving the ratio 2 : 3.
7. (d) 1/8 — The multiples of 3 from 1 to 8 are 3 and 6, so the probability of that event is 2/8, which simplifies to 1/4. The probability of the coin landing on heads is 1/2. Since the spin and the toss are independent, multiply the two probabilities: 1/4 × 1/2 = 1/8. A candidate who answers 1/4 has considered only the spinner and forgotten to combine it with the coin toss. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the coin and forgotten the spinner condition entirely. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only one number, 6, as a multiple of 3 instead of two, giving 1/8 × 1/2.
8. (c) 4 × 10⁴ — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, and 6 − 2 = 4, so each project receives 4 × 10⁴ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 × 2 = 12, so 4 × 10¹². Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 + 2 = 8, so 4 × 10⁸. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 8 − 2 = 6, so 6 × 10⁴.
9. (a) x = 4, y = −3 — Method: both equations contain +y with the same coefficient, so subtracting one equation from the other removes y. Working: (2x + y) − (x + y) = 5 − 1 gives x = 4; substituting x = 4 into x + y = 1 gives 4 + y = 1, so y = −3. Answer: x = 4, y = −3, which also satisfies 8 − 3 = 5. The distractors: x = 4, y = 5 comes from rearranging x + y = 1 as y = 1 + x; x = −2, y = 3 comes from eliminating x by doubling the first equation and then reading −y = 3 as y = 3; x = 6, y = −5 comes from adding the constants instead of subtracting them while eliminating y, taking x as 5 + 1.
10. (a) Ben, because a larger sample is closer to the theory — Method: a relative frequency is an estimate of a probability, and for an unbiased experiment that estimate tends towards the theoretical value as the sample grows. Working: Priya's estimate rests on 50 results, so a few unexpected heads move it a long way; one extra head shifts her relative frequency by 1 ÷ 50 = 0.02. Ben's estimate rests on 500 results, where one extra head shifts his relative frequency by only 1 ÷ 500 = 0.002. The larger sample therefore swings far less around the true value. Answer: Ben's relative frequency is the one more likely to be close, because a larger unbiased sample tends closer to the theoretical probability. The distractors: saying a small sample is less affected by luck reverses the result, since it is the small sample that swings most; saying every flip is a separate random event is true of the flips themselves but says nothing about the estimates, and is often used to argue wrongly that the number of trials does not matter; saying 500 flips must give exactly 250 heads confuses an expected value with a guaranteed one, and 500 flips very rarely give exactly 250 heads.
11. (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
12. (b) bisect the angle between the two lines — The points equidistant from two straight lines that meet lie on the angle bisector of the angle between them — every point on a bisector is the same perpendicular distance from each line, which is exactly what the angle bisector construction produces. "construct the perpendicular bisector of the two lines" confuses the bisector of a line SEGMENT between two points with the bisector of an ANGLE between two lines — a different construction for a different kind of equidistance. "construct a perpendicular from the crossing point" only gives one new line at 90° to one of the originals, not the points equidistant from both. "draw a circle centred at the crossing point" gives points a fixed distance from the crossing point, not points equidistant from the two lines.