⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (c) 36 cm — A perimeter is built from lengths, so it is multiplied by the length scale factor and not by the square of it. The scale factor from the smaller rectangle to the larger one is 10 ÷ 5 = 2. The larger perimeter is therefore 18 × 2 = 36 cm.
2. (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
3. (c) 1 : 25 — The radii are in the ratio 4 : 20, which simplifies to 1 : 5. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so the area ratio is 1² : 5² = 1 : 25. Giving 1 : 5 uses the radius ratio without squaring it. Giving 1 : 10 doubles the radius ratio instead of squaring it. Giving 25 : 1 has the areas the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger.
4. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
5. (b) The 2.4 kg bag, since it costs £1.80 per kg compared with £1.90 per kg for the 1.5 kg bag. — To compare value for money, work out the cost per kilogram for each bag. 1.5 kg bag: £2.85 ÷ 1.5 = £1.90 per kg. 2.4 kg bag: £4.32 ÷ 2.4 = £1.80 per kg. Since £1.80 is less than £1.90, the 2.4 kg bag gives better value. The option comparing £2.85 with £4.32 directly is wrong because it compares the total prices, not the price per kilogram — a bigger bag naturally costs more in total even if it is better value. The option that names the 1.5 kg bag with £1.80 per kg and the 2.4 kg bag with £1.90 per kg has the correct unit prices but has swapped which bag they belong to. The option giving £1.19 per kg and £2.88 per kg comes from dividing each price by the wrong bag's mass (£2.85 ÷ 2.4 and £4.32 ÷ 1.5).
6. (d) 25 minutes — Method: find the time for one kilometre, then multiply by the number of kilometres — the unitary method with a rate. Working: 10 ÷ 2 = 5 minutes per km, and 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from multiplying the 10 minutes by 2, the distance in the given rate, instead of by the scale factor 2.5; 50 minutes comes from multiplying 10 by 5, treating the 10 minutes as the time for a single kilometre; 15 minutes comes from adding the 5 km on to the 10 minutes, adding quantities that are not the same kind.
7. (c) £22.50 — Method: find the cost of 1 kg, then multiply by the mass wanted. Working: £36 ÷ 2.4 = £15 per kilogram, and 1.5 × £15 = £22.50. Answer: £22.50. The distractors: £15 is the price of 1 kg, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; £54 comes from multiplying the £36 by 1.5 without first reducing it to a price per kilogram; £57.60 comes from using the scale factor upside down, multiplying £36 by 2.4 ÷ 1.5 = 1.6 instead of by 1.5 ÷ 2.4.
8. (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
9. (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
10. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
11. (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
12. (b) They are in inverse proportion, because x × y = 60 for both pairs. — Testing inverse proportion means checking that x × y is the same for every pair: 4 × 15 = 60 and 6 × 10 = 60, so the quantities are in inverse proportion. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because y ÷ x differs uses the test for direct proportion, and finding that it differs tells us nothing about inverse proportion. Saying x × y = 40 for both pairs is an arithmetic slip: 4 × 15 = 60, not 40.
13. (a) 40 m² — A scale of 1 : 10 is a length scale factor of 10 from model to real. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor: 10² = 100. 0.4 × 100 = 40, so the real staircase covers 40 m². Giving 4 m² uses the length scale factor, 10, without squaring it (0.4 × 10 = 4). Giving 0.04 m² divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying by its square (0.4 ÷ 10 = 0.04). Giving 400 m² cubes the scale factor, 10³ = 1000, as if area scaled like a volume (0.4 × 1000 = 400).
14. (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
15. (b) 5:8 — The mix has 5 parts sand and 3 parts cement, so 5 + 3 = 8 parts in total. Sand to total is 5 : 8, and since the highest common factor of 5 and 8 is 1, this is already in its simplest form. Giving 5 : 3 answers sand to cement, not sand to the total mix. Giving 3 : 8 is cement to total, the wrong part of the mix. Giving 8 : 5 has the total and the sand swapped round.
16. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
17. (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
18. (c) 1 : 4 — Convert to the same unit: 1.2 litres = 1200 ml, since 1 litre = 1000 ml. This gives the ratio 300 : 1200. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 300, to get 1 : 4. Giving 3 : 12 divides by 100 only, which is a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 1 : 1.2 has not converted 1.2 litres into millilitres, so the two parts are not in the same unit. Giving 4 : 1 swaps the order, comparing water to concentrate instead of concentrate to water.
19. (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
20. (c) 4 km — Since signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, S = k/d². Using d = 2, S = 20: 2² = 4, so 20 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 20 × 4 = 80. The equation is S = 80/d². When S = 5: d² = 80 ÷ 5 = 16, so d = 4 (taking the positive root, since distance cannot be negative). Stopping at d² = 16 without taking the square root leaves 16, the square of the distance, not the distance itself. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to distance itself, rather than to its square, gives k = 20 × 2 = 40 and then d = 40 ÷ 5 = 8, a different relationship. Multiplying by S instead of dividing by it when isolating d² gives d² = 80 × 5 = 400 and d = 20, the wrong operation. The distance at which the signal strength is 5 units is 4 km.
21. (b) 3:2 — Write both fractions over a common denominator of 4: 3/4 stays as 3/4, and 1/2 = 2/4. Comparing the numerators gives the ratio 3 : 2. Getting 2 : 3 swaps the two parts round. Getting 3 : 1 comes from using the numerator of the first fraction and the original numerator of the second fraction (1) without converting to a common denominator. Getting 2 : 1 comes from using only the denominators, 4 and 2, and simplifying those instead of the numerators.
22. (c) 120 km/h — Method: for a fixed distance the average speed multiplied by the time is constant, and that constant is the distance, so divide the distance by the new time. Working: speed × time = 240, so in 2 hours the speed needed is 240 ÷ 2 = 120 km/h. Answer: 120 km/h. The distractors: 80 km/h is the average speed of the original journey, 240 ÷ 3, which answers for the 3-hour timing rather than the 2-hour one; 160 km/h comes from halving the 3 hours to 1.5 hours and working out 240 ÷ 1.5, instead of using the 2 hours the question gives; 480 km/h comes from multiplying the distance by the 2 hours rather than dividing by it.
23. (c) 16 cm — Corresponding sides of similar triangles are all in the same ratio. Use the pair whose lengths are both known: the scale factor from triangle ABC to triangle PQR is 12 ÷ 6 = 2. Since QR corresponds to BC, multiply BC by that scale factor: 8 × 2 = 16, so QR = 16 cm.
24. (b) 4.5 m² — The height ratio is 40 : 60, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger bookcase is 1.5 times as tall as the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor, so the wood needed scales by 1.5² = 2.25. 2 × 2.25 = 4.5, so the larger bookcase needs 4.5 m² of wood. Giving 3 m² uses the length scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (2 × 1.5 = 3). Giving 6.75 m² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if wood coverage were a volume (2 × 3.375 = 6.75). Giving 2.25 m² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller bookcase's wood area of 2 m².