Worksheet generator

1.B — 2KA-0011Divisibility rules: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10

• AI added the known digits to get 13 and then checked whether the missing digit itself was a multiple of 3.
• CI chose 3 because the question mentioned dividing by 3, without testing the digit sum at all.
• DI tested the last two digits, which is the rule for 4, not the rule for 3.
• EI added the digits but left out the 4 at the end, so my sum was four too small.

2.B — 15KA-0056Place value and digit positions

• AI checked that the digits differ and stopped, without working out how much the swap actually changes the number.
• CI saw a difference of 2 between the digits and expected that to give a change of 36.
• DI ignored the direction: swapping this number makes it smaller, not bigger.
• EI picked a number whose digits differ by 4 without noticing that the larger digit is already in front.

3.D — 144KA-0063Divisibility rules: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10

• AI checked that it divides by 4 and stopped without testing the 9.
• BI checked the digit sum for 9 and stopped without testing the 4.
• CI saw an even number with a digit sum of 6 and treated 6 as good enough for 9.
• EI tested 9 with the digit sum and assumed any odd multiple of 9 also divides by 4.

4.B — 3KA-0068Tree diagrams

• AI read the two in exactly two heads as the answer rather than as a condition to count.
• CI counted the outcomes with two or more heads, so I included the three-head one as well.
• DI counted the orderings of three different objects instead of listing the eight outcomes.
• EI gave the total number of possible outcomes rather than the number with exactly two heads.

5.B — 1KA-0089Building and counting with unit cubes

• AI assumed every small cube touches the outside somewhere.
• CI counted the cubes at the centre of each face, which are painted on one side.
• DI counted the corner cubes, which are the most painted rather than the least.
• EI gave the total number of small cubes instead of the unpainted ones.

6.B — Bo onlyKA-0096Truth-tellers and liars

• AI took Ana's statement at face value without checking whether a truthful person could say it.
• CI decided nobody was lying without testing Ana's statement against that assumption.
• DI believed Ana's statement even after concluding she was a liar, which is what a liar's statement cannot be.
• EI gave up when Ana's statement looked circular, instead of testing one assumption all the way through.

7.B — Box X is not redKA-0099Reading a logical statement precisely

• AI read the rule backwards, as if being heavy were what makes a box red.
• CI assumed not red must mean one particular other colour, when the rule says nothing about which.
• DI contradicted the rule I was given rather than applying it to box X.
• EI decided one fact could not settle anything, without testing what would follow if X were red.

8.A — Yes, alwaysKA-0102Informal proof by contradiction

• BI found one pair that works and assumed the argument depended on that particular card.
• CI tried a couple of selections, did not find a pair, and stopped looking.
• DI looked for a pattern in the numbers rather than at how many pairs there are to avoid.
• EI thought the answer depended on which six were taken, when the counting settles it for every choice.

9.C — 12KA-0105Patterns in tables and grids

• AI stopped at row 3, taking two steps down from the top instead of three.
• BI found where row 4 starts but forgot to move across to the third column.
• DI moved three columns across instead of two, counting columns rather than steps between them.
• EI took four steps of 3 downwards instead of three, counting rows rather than the gaps between them.

10.D — 21KA-0132Eliminate impossible choices by bounding

• AI did not try one five and four twos, so I judged this total impossible.
• BI missed the combination of two fives and three twos.
• CI stopped listing after two fives and never reached three fives and two twos.
• EI forgot the case where every coin is a five, which is allowed by the wording.