⏱️ Ten-minute starters — Foundation

Answer key

1. (a) 15 km — Multiply the length drawn on the map by the scale: 3 × 5 = 15 km. Choosing 8 km adds the two scale numbers together (3 + 5 = 8) instead of multiplying them. Choosing 30 km comes from misreading the scale as 1 cm : 10 km and doubling the correct answer. Choosing 5 km simply repeats the scale's distance figure and ignores that the road is drawn 3 cm long, not 1 cm.
2. (b) 8/5 — The reciprocal of a fraction a/b is b/a — swap the numerator and denominator. So the reciprocal of 5/8 is 8/5. A candidate who wrote 5/8 gave the original fraction, not its reciprocal. A candidate who worked out 1 − 5/8 = 3/8 confused 'reciprocal' with subtracting from 1. A candidate who wrote −8/5 inverted the fraction correctly but introduced an unnecessary sign change.
3. (d) 26.6 — Find the constant multiplier — the mass of each metre of pipe: 12.6 ÷ 4.5 = 2.8, so the mass is always 2.8 times the length. For a length of 9.5 m, the mass is 9.5 × 2.8 = 26.6 kg. 17.6 comes from assuming an additive relationship instead of a multiplicative one — adding the increase in length (9.5 − 4.5 = 5) onto 12.6. 3.4 comes from using the multiplier the wrong way round (4.5 ÷ 12.6, rounded to 1 d.p.), then multiplying by 9.5. 12.6 comes from simply repeating the given mass, without applying the multiplier to the new length.
4. (d) 75 — Method: to find a total from a bar chart, add together the height of every bar. Working: 12 + 18 + 9 + 15 + 21 = 75 books. Leaving out Wednesday's bar by mistake, 12 + 18 + 15 + 21 = 66, misses one day out of the total. Giving 21 states only Friday's bar, the tallest one, not the total of all five days. Dividing the total by the number of days, 75 ÷ 5 = 15, finds the mean number of books per day, not the total borrowed. Add up every single bar — do not stop at the biggest one, and do not divide once you have added them all.
5. (a) 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate — Method: scale each sample up to the whole stock, then use the fact that a larger sample gives a more reliable estimate than a smaller one. Working: the first sample gives 35 ÷ 50 = 0.7 and 0.7 × 2,000 = 1,400 paperbacks; the second gives 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62 and 0.62 × 2,000 = 1,240 paperbacks. Two random samples of the same size are expected to differ a little, so neither estimate is wrong. Putting the two together gives 35 + 31 = 66 paperbacks in 100 books, and 66 ÷ 100 = 0.66 with 0.66 × 2,000 = 1,320, an estimate resting on twice as many books as either volunteer checked. Answer: 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate. The distractors: keeping 1,400 because it is larger picks an estimate by its size, when both samples held 50 books and neither has a stronger claim; saying a volunteer must have miscounted assumes two random samples ought to agree exactly, which is precisely what random sampling does not promise; 1,750 and 1,550 come from 35 × 50 = 1,750 and 31 × 50 = 1,550, multiplying each count by the size of the sample instead of scaling by 2,000 ÷ 50.
6. (a) 62.5 — Method: a mean cannot be averaged with a new value — rebuild the total, add the new value to it, then divide by the new count. Working: three numbers with a mean of 50 have a total of 50 × 3 = 150; adding 100 makes the total 150 + 100 = 250; there are now 4 numbers, so the new mean is 250 ÷ 4 = 62.5. Answer: 62.5. The distractors: 75 comes from averaging the old mean with the new value, (50 + 100) ÷ 2, which ignores that three numbers pull against one; 50 comes from assuming an extra value leaves the mean unchanged; 37.5 comes from dividing the old total of 150 by the new count of 4, adding the new value to the count but not to the total.
7. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
8. (c) 6 squares — Method: the plan view shows the footprint of the solid; a second layer stacked on top of floor positions that are already covered does not create any new squares in the plan. Working: the row of 4 cubes and the row of 2 cubes attached at the end do not overlap, so the footprint has 4 + 2 = 6 distinct squares. Answer: 6 squares. The distractors: 12 squares comes from counting the total number of cubes used, including the second layer (6 floor positions × 2 layers = 12), instead of the footprint. 4 squares comes from counting only the row of four and forgetting the attached row of two. 5 squares comes from wrongly treating the corner square as shared between the two rows (4 + 1 instead of 4 + 2).
9. (a) 5 — Method: the cube root of a number is the value that multiplies by itself three times to give that number. Working: 5 × 5 × 5 = 125, so ∛125 = 5. 62.5 comes from working out 125 ÷ 2 = 62.5, halving the number instead of finding its cube root. 375 comes from working out 125 × 3 = 375, multiplying by 3 instead of cube-rooting it. 15625 comes from working out 125², squaring the number instead of finding its cube root. Answer: 5.
10. (d) It asks two things at once and invites agreement — Method: a survey question is faulty when a reply to it cannot be read as evidence about one single thing, so check how many claims it contains and whether its wording pushes the reader one way. Working: the question joins two separate claims, that learning matters and that more homework should be set, so a reply of yes could mean either of them or both and cannot be counted as evidence about homework; the opening words “Do you agree” also invite agreement instead of leaving the reader free to say no. Answer: it asks two things at once and invites agreement. The distractors: the reply calling it too short mistakes length for clarity, when the fault is that too much has been packed in rather than too little; the reply about long words is false, since every word in the question is an everyday one and the fault lies in what is being asked rather than in the vocabulary used to ask it; the reply that the question is fine takes a yes or no answer as proof that the question works, which is exactly what a double question defeats.
11. (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.
12. (a) 10/7 — Put Saturday's distance over Sunday's distance: 17.5/12.25. Multiply both numbers by 100 to clear the decimals: 1750/1225. Divide both by their highest common factor, 175: 1750÷175 = 10, 1225÷175 = 7, giving 10/7. (7/10 comes from writing the distances the wrong way round. 3/7 comes from finding the difference, 17.5 − 12.25 = 5.25 km, and writing it as a fraction of Sunday's distance, 5.25/12.25. 10/17 comes from comparing Saturday's distance to the total distance ridden, 17.5/29.75.)