Worksheet generator

1.B — 28KA-0035Handshakes and pairs

• AI doubled the number of people, as if each person made two handshakes in total.
• CI let each person shake hands with all eight people including themselves before halving.
• DI multiplied 8 by 7 and forgot that each handshake was counted from both sides.
• EI multiplied 8 by 8, counting every ordered pair including a person with themselves.

2.B — 7KA-0064Fractions of a quantity

• AI divided 28 by 7 instead of taking a quarter of it.
• CI found three quarters of 16 by mistake, mixing up the class size.
• DI found how many did travel by bus and gave that instead of how many did not.
• EI subtracted the 4 quarters as if they were 4 students.

3.B — 75KA-0088Angles on lines, in triangles, in polygons

• AI added the three angles wrongly, getting 295 instead of 285.
• CI used an angle sum of 370, mis-remembering the total for a quadrilateral.
• DI repeated one of the given angles instead of computing the missing one.
• EI used the triangle's 180 degrees and then adjusted, rather than the quadrilateral's 360.

4.C — HKA-0142Line and rotational symmetry

• AI found the vertical fold and assumed a horizontal one must work too.
• BI found the horizontal fold and stopped without testing the vertical one.
• DI counted the vertical fold twice rather than testing a horizontal one.
• EI mistook turning the letter upside down for folding it, which is rotation rather than symmetry about a line.

5.C — 61KA-0030Arithmetic sequences and the nth term

• AI added the step 18 times, counting the gaps between terms one too few.
• BI multiplied the step of 3 by 20 and forgot that the first term is already in place.
• DI used a first term of 3 instead of 4 while adding 20 steps.
• EI added the step 20 times to the first term instead of 19 times.

6.C — 9 timesKA-0042Scaling and similar figures

• AI applied the length scale factor straight to the area.
• BI doubled the scale factor because area involves two dimensions, instead of squaring it.
• DI multiplied the scale factor by four, as though area scaled with the number of sides.
• EI cubed the scale factor, which is the rule for volume rather than area.

7.D — 24KA-0073Arrangements of a few objects

• AI counted the letters rather than their arrangements.
• BI multiplied 4 by 3 and stopped, forgetting the last two positions.
• CI used 4 choices for every position, as if letters could repeat.
• EI used 4 choices in each of four positions, which allows every letter to repeat.

8.B — BoKA-0092Ordering and ranking from clues

• AI gave the child who is first rather than the one who is second.
• CI placed Cal directly after Ana, reading ahead of Dee as meaning immediately ahead.
• DI built the order backwards from the last position instead of forwards from the first.
• EI assumed the clues left several orders open without checking that they chain into a single one.

9.B — 8KA-0100Working backwards

• AI undid the operations in the order they were written instead of in reverse order.
• CI gave the final answer back, assuming the three steps cancelled each other out.
• DI doubled the 11 and subtracted the 6 but forgot the final halving that undoes the doubling.
• EI undid only the halving and stopped there without touching the other two steps.

10.B — 21KA-0104Recursive rules

• AI counted the two starting terms as one, so I stopped at the seventh term.
• CI added the two before it but slipped once in the middle of the chain.
• DI generated one term too many and gave the ninth.
• EI doubled each term instead of adding the two before it.

11.C — 55KA-0107Growth patterns and figurate numbers

• AI stopped at the eighth triangle, losing count while adding the rows.
• BI gave the ninth triangle instead of the tenth, being one row short.
• DI gave the eleventh triangle, adding one row too many.
• EI squared the position number, which describes square patterns rather than triangular ones.

12.E — 408KA-0129Sanity-check with a second method

• AI worked out 17 times 20 and forgot to add the 17 times 4 part.
• BI worked out 17 times 4 as 28 instead of 68 when adding the parts together.
• CI worked out 17 times 4 as 48 instead of 68 when adding the parts together.
• DI made a carrying slip of ten in the final addition of the two parts.

13.E — No, it is impossibleKA-0028Parity arguments

• AI found a sequence that turned over most of the cups and assumed the last one could be fixed somehow.
• BI matched the number of moves to the number of cups without checking whether the target is reachable at all.
• CI assumed that with enough moves any arrangement can be reached.
• DI thought the choice of which cups to flip could change whether the target is reachable.

14.A — 8KA-0031Counting paths on a grid

• BI assumed closing one junction removes about half the routes and halved the total of 20.
• CI counted the routes that pass through the closed junction and gave that instead of the ones that avoid it.
• DI subtracted only the 2 routes that reach the closed junction, not all the routes that continue through it.
• EI counted every route on the open grid and forgot to remove the ones through the closed junction.

15.C — 4KA-0040The pigeonhole principle

• AI answered with the lucky case, where the first two socks happen to match.
• BI used the number of colours as my answer without adding one for the sock that must repeat.
• DI worked from the number of socks of each colour instead of the number of colours.
• EI took the whole drawer, guaranteeing a pair but far more socks than are needed.

16.C — 55KA-0078Extremal / worst-case counting

• AI found the smallest possible total of the other nine and gave that instead of what is left.
• BI assumed the biggest number could be at most half the total.
• DI made the other nine numbers all equal to 1, forgetting that they have to be different from each other.
• EI ignored the other nine numbers entirely, as if the biggest could take the whole total.

17.B — 9KA-0095The extremal principle

• AI divided 100 by 12 and rounded down instead of up.
• CI rounded the division to a convenient number without checking that a packing with a smaller maximum exists.
• DI gave the number of boxes as the answer rather than a number of apples.
• EI described the case where one box holds everything, which is possible but not guaranteed.

18.D — No, because the number of moves is oddKA-0097Parity arguments

• AI assumed enough moves can undo anything, without asking what each move preserves.
• BI tried a few sequences that nearly worked and assumed a better choice would finish the job.
• CI reached for the number of items rather than for what a single swap actually changes.
• EI thought the choice of swaps could change the outcome, when every swap has the same effect.

19.B — 11KA-0112Mixtures and weighted averages

• AI averaged the two averages, ignoring that the classes are different sizes.
• CI weighted the averages but used the wrong class size against each one.
• DI leaned towards the larger class's average without computing the totals.
• EI added the two averages together instead of combining them.

20.B — Answer it with your best guess, mark it, and move onKA-0126Time triage: now, later, or guess

• AI let the time already spent decide, but that time is gone whatever I do next.
• CI moved on but left a blank, which scores nothing if I never get back to it.
• DI spent time re-reading work I had no reason to doubt, while 21 unseen questions waited.
• EI assumed the hardest questions are the best use of time, when the unseen easy ones are worth the same each.