⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (a) £102 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio, then work out each group's share before comparing them. Working: the ratio 5:2 has 5 + 2 = 7 parts, so one part is £238 ÷ 7 = £34. Adults donate 5 × £34 = £170 and children donate 2 × £34 = £68, so adults donate £170 − £68 = £102 more than children. So the difference is £102. Distractor £68 is only the children's donation, without finding the difference. Distractor £170 is only the adults' donation, without finding the difference. Distractor £136 comes from doubling the children's donation instead of subtracting it from the adults' donation.
2. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
3. (b) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
4. (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.
5. (c) 90 cm² — The perimeter ratio is 30 : 45, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger frame is 1.5 times the perimeter of the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of this length scale factor: 1.5² = 2.25. 40 × 2.25 = 90, so the larger frame has an area of 90 cm². Giving 60 cm² uses the scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (40 × 1.5 = 60). Giving 135 cm² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if area scaled like a volume (40 × 3.375 = 135). Giving 2.25 cm² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller frame's area of 40 cm².
6. (b) £16 — Since cost is proportional to the square root of diameter, C = k√d. Using d = 9, C = 12: √9 = 3, so 12 = k × 3, giving k = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. The equation is C = 4√d. When d = 16: √16 = 4, so C = 4 × 4 = 16. Halving the new diameter instead of taking its square root gives 16 ÷ 2 = 8, and then C = 4 × 8 = 32 — halving a number is not the same as taking its square root, as √16 = 4, not 8. Multiplying k by the diameter itself instead of by its square root gives C = 4 × 16 = 64, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √16 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 4, not the cost. The cost of manufacturing a lens of diameter 16 mm is £16.
7. (c) 450 g — Method: use the amount of butter given to find the value of one part of the ratio, then find the mass of flour, and finally add flour and butter to get the total. Working: 180 g of butter is 2 parts, so one part is 180 ÷ 2 = 90 g. The flour is 3 parts, so 3 × 90 = 270 g, and the total mass is 270 + 180 = 450 g. So the baker can make 450 g of pastry. Distractor 270 g is only the mass of flour, forgetting to add the butter back on. Distractor 300 g comes from treating the 180 g as 3 parts instead of 2, swapping which ratio number matches the butter. Distractor 540 g comes from multiplying 180 by 3 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
8. (b) 16 — Method: substitute x into each equation separately, then subtract the smaller value from the larger. Working: y = 3 × 4 = 12 and z = 7 × 4 = 28, so the difference is 28 − 12 = 16. Answer: 16. The distractors: 4 comes from subtracting the constants, 7 − 3, which is the difference between the two gradients rather than the difference between the values at x = 4; 40 comes from adding the two values, 12 + 28, instead of subtracting them; 28 is the value of z on its own, given instead of being compared with the value of y.
9. (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.
10. (c) 1:2 — Convert £1.50 into pence: £1.50 = 150p, so the ratio is 75 : 150. Dividing both parts by 75 gives 1 : 2. Getting 50 : 1 comes from not converting the units at all and simplifying 75 : 1.5. Getting 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 3 : 4 comes from reading 75p as 3/4 of a pound and then comparing it with £1 instead of £1.50.
11. (a) 4 hours — This is inverse proportion: more pumps take less time. Multiply the original numbers to find the total pump-hours needed: 2 × 10 = 20 pump-hours. Divide by the new number of pumps: 20 ÷ 5 = 4 hours. Working out 10 × 5 ÷ 2 = 25 hours treats it as direct proportion, as if more pumps needed more time. Stopping at 20 gives the total pump-hours, not the number of hours. Working out 10 − (5 − 2) = 7 hours subtracts the extra number of pumps straight from the number of hours, treating pumps and hours as the same kind of quantity. 5 pumps take 4 hours.
12. (b) 900 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 45 ÷ 0.05 = 900 N/m². Working out 45 ÷ 5 = 9 misplaces the decimal point in the area, treating 0.05 m² as 5 m². Working out 45 × 0.05 = 2.25 multiplies force and area together instead of dividing. Working out 45 + 0.05 = 45.05 simply adds the two given numbers, which does not give a pressure at all. The pressure on the ground is 900 N/m².
13. (b) 120 minutes — Method: find the rate in bottles per minute, then divide the order size by the rate. Working: rate = 810 ÷ 45 = 18 bottles per minute. Time = 2,160 ÷ 18 = 120 minutes. Wrong options: 1,350 minutes comes from subtracting 810 from 2,160 instead of using the rate; 48 minutes comes from dividing the order size by the original time (2,160 ÷ 45) instead of the rate; 108 minutes comes from rounding the rate to 20 bottles per minute before dividing.
14. (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.
15. (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
16. (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.
17. (b) £250 — Since cost is proportional to the cube of the radius, C = kr³. Using r = 3, C = 54: 3³ = 27, so 54 = k × 27, giving k = 54 ÷ 27 = 2. The equation is C = 2r³. When r = 5: 5³ = 125, so C = 2 × 125 = 250. Treating the relationship as proportional to r² instead of r³ gives k = 54 ÷ 9 = 6 and then C = 6 × 25 = 150, which models area scaling, not volume scaling. Treating it as proportional to r itself gives k = 54 ÷ 3 = 18 and then C = 18 × 5 = 90. Finding k correctly from the cube but then multiplying it by the radius instead of by the cube of the radius gives 2 × 5 = 10, which applies the right constant to the wrong power of r. The cost of a container of radius 5 cm is £250.
18. (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
19. (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
20. (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.
21. (b) €230.00 — Multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate: 200 × 1.15 = 230, so £200 = €230.00. Working out 200 + 1.15 = 201.15 treats the exchange rate as an amount to add rather than a multiplier. Working out 200 × 0.15 = 30 finds only the extra amount earned for every pound and forgets to add it back to the original £200. Working out 200 × 11.5 = 2300.00 misplaces the decimal point in the exchange rate, multiplying by 11.5 instead of 1.15. £200 converts to €230.00.
22. (a) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
23. (c) 7.6 — Density = mass ÷ volume, so 356.5 ÷ 47 = 7.585..., which rounds to 7.6 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). (0.1 comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume, the wrong way round. 7.5 comes from rounding 7.585 down instead of up to 1 decimal place. 403.5 comes from adding the mass and the volume instead of dividing.)
24. (a) 4 : 15 — Convert to the same unit first: 1.5 kg = 1500 g, since 1 kg = 1000 g. This gives the ratio 400 : 1500. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 100, to get 4 : 15. Giving 40 : 150 divides by 10 only, which is not the highest common factor, so it is not fully simplified. Giving 15 : 4 swaps the order. Giving 4 : 1.5 has not converted 1.5 kg into grams, so the two parts are not measured in the same unit.