MATHEMATICS-1MA1 · Pearson Edexcel GCSE (9–1)
MATHEMATICS-1MA1/21
(Calculator)
Mathematics · 2024 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Pearson Edexcel
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
2.8 / 5
240
270 min
Proportional reasoning, financial arithmetic, and multi-step ratio problems
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
240
Duration
270 min
Session difficulty
2.8 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort.
While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering decimals), the latter halves of the papers introduced several high-demand multi-step problems.
In particular, Paper 1F (Non-Calculator) tested candidates' arithmetic resilience through non-trivial long multiplication, fraction operations, and compound ratio reasoning.
Papers 2F and 3F balanced this with calculator-based geometric trigonometry, similar triangles, and reverse estimation tasks.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Arithmetic Precise
Weight: 9100%Algebraic Manipulation
Weight: 778%Geometric Reasoning
Weight: 556%Proportional & Multi-Perspective-Perspective
Weight: 333%Statistical Interpretation
Weight: 222%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
Examiner report — national grade boundaries and question-level commentary
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “out” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Write” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Find” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Draw” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Show” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Complete” questions.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.2
Min per mark: 1.2
Min per mark: 1.2
Min per mark: 1.1
Min per mark: 1
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Number (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
58 marks this session
Ratio, proportion and rates of change (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
49 marks this session
Geometry and measures (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
48 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Number (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
Ratio, proportion and rates of change (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
Geometry and measures (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
Algebra (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Paper 2 (Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Paper 3 (Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Number (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
58 marks this session
Practise in RevuiRatio, proportion and rates of change (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
49 marks this session
Practise in RevuiGeometry and measures (Foundation tier knowledge, skills and understanding)
48 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort.
- 2Message
While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering decimals), the latter halves of the papers introduced several high-demand multi-step problems.
- 3Message
In particular, Paper 1F (Non-Calculator) tested candidates' arithmetic resilience through non-trivial long multiplication, fraction operations, and compound ratio reasoning.
- 4Message
Papers 2F and 3F balanced this with calculator-based geometric trigonometry, similar triangles, and reverse estimation tasks.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2024 2024
Mathematics
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort. While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering de
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort.
While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering decimals), the latter halves of the papers introduced several high-demand multi-step problems.
In particular, Paper 1F (Non-Calculator) tested candidates' arithmetic resilience through non-trivial long multiplication, fraction operations, and compound ratio reasoning.
- Total marks
- 240
- Duration
- 270 min
- Session difficulty
- 2.8 / 5
Session analysis
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort. While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering decimals), the latter halves of the papers introduced several high-demand multi-step problems. In particular, Paper 1F (Non-Calculator) tested candidates' arithmetic resilience through non-trivial long multiplication, fraction operations, and compound ratio reasoning. Papers 2F and 3F balanced this with calculator-based geometric trigonometry, similar triangles, and reverse estimation tasks.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Paper 2 (Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Paper 3 (Calculator) Foundation Tier:
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
75% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Complex Problem Solving
(4+ marks)
112·24·47%
Standard Multi-Step
(2-3 marks)
107·41·45%
Short Answer / Drill
(1 mark)
21·21·9%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 (Non-Calcul…
0.84 m/minPaper 1 (Non-Calcul…
0.97 m/minPaper 2 (Calculator…
0.84 m/minPaper 2 (Calculator…
0.94 m/minPaper 3 (Calculator…
0.85 m/minTotal marks
206
Total time
235 min
Avg pace
0.88
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Simultaneous Equations
4%4%
Probability Trees with Fraction Multiplication
4%4%
Angles in Parallel Lines
4%4%
Overall Difficulty Verdict
The 2024 Foundation papers maintained a very consistent standard of difficulty, sitting firmly at a 3-star medium level for the target cohort. While early questions in all three papers offered highly accessible starting points (such as rounding, basic conversions, and ordering decimals), the latter halves of the papers introduced several high-demand multi-step problems. In particular, Paper 1F (Non-Calculator) tested candidates' arithmetic resilience through non-trivial long multiplication, fraction operations, and compound ratio reasoning. Papers 2F and 3F balanced this with calculator-based geometric trigonometry, similar triangles, and reverse estimation tasks.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 1h 30min
- Total marks
- 80
- Weighting
- 33.33%
- Question types
- Short Answer, Structured Problem Solving, Multi-Step Application
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.