⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (b) 4 — Method: find the length scale factor by taking the cube root of the volume scale factor, then square it to get the area scale factor. Working: 8 = 2³, so the length scale factor is 2, and the area scale factor is 2² = 4. Answer: 4. 8 comes from using the volume scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor. 64 comes from squaring the volume scale factor, 8² = 64, instead of first taking its cube root. 2 comes from correctly finding the length scale factor but then forgetting to square it.
2. (d) 35 — Method: in direct proportion the ratio y : x is the same for every pair, so find the constant and substitute the new value of x. Working: k = 20 ÷ 8 = 2.5, so y = 2.5x; when x = 14, y = 2.5 × 14 = 35. Answer: 35. The distractors: 26 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 6, so 6 is added to y — which would keep the difference constant rather than the ratio; 28 comes from rounding the constant 2.5 down to 2 and working out 2 × 14, which loses the half in the constant; 5.6 comes from using the constant upside down, 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4, and working out 0.4 × 14.
3. (a) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
4. (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.
5. (d) 3 : 2 — Convert both amounts to pence: £3.60 = 360p and £2.40 = 240p, giving the ratio 360 : 240. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 120, to get 3 : 2. Giving 360 : 240 has not been simplified at all. Giving 2 : 3 swaps the order. Giving 36 : 24 has been divided by 10, which is a common factor but not the highest one, so it is not yet in simplest form.
6. (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.
7. (b) 4 : 25 — For similar shapes, the ratio of areas is the ratio of lengths squared: 2² : 5² = 4 : 25. 2 : 5 comes from using the perimeter ratio itself as the area ratio, without squaring it at all. 8 : 125 comes from cubing each part instead of squaring (2³ : 5³) — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 4 : 5 comes from squaring only the first part of the ratio (2² = 4), and leaving the second part unsquared.
8. (a) 1:8 — Convert 2 kg to grams: 2 kg = 2000 g. The ratio is 250 : 2000. The highest common factor of 250 and 2000 is 250. Divide both parts by 250: 250 ÷ 250 = 1 and 2000 ÷ 250 = 8, so the ratio is 1 : 8. Leaving the kilograms unconverted gives 250 : 2, which simplifies to 125 : 1 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 50 instead of 250 gives 5 : 40, which still shares a common factor of 5, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 1, grams to kilograms the wrong way round.
9. (a) 3 hours — Method: for a fixed pool the rate of flow multiplied by the time taken is constant, so multiplying the rate by a factor divides the time by that same factor. Working: tap B's rate is 2 times tap A's rate, so tap B's time is 6 ÷ 2 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 12 hours comes from multiplying the time by 2 as well, which treats the time as directly proportional to the rate and has the faster tap taking longer; 4 hours comes from reading ‘twice as fast’ additively, as two hours quicker, and working out 6 − 2 instead of scaling the time by a factor of 2; 1.5 hours comes from applying the factor of 2 twice, halving 6 to 3 and then halving again.
10. (c) 1 : 27 — The edge lengths are in the ratio 2 : 6, which simplifies to 1 : 3. Volumes scale with the cube of the length ratio, so the volume ratio is 1³ : 3³ = 1 : 27. Giving 1 : 3 uses the length ratio without cubing it. Giving 1 : 9 squares the length ratio, which is the rule for areas, instead of cubing it, which is the rule for volumes. Giving 27 : 1 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger as the question asks.
11. (b) 7.2 m — Multiply the model wingspan by the scale factor: 15 × 48 = 720. This is in centimetres, and 720 cm = 7.2 m, since 1 m = 100 cm. Giving 0.31 m divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (15 ÷ 48 ≈ 0.31), scaling the model down rather than the real aircraft up. Giving 72 m converts centimetres to metres by dividing by 10 instead of 100. Giving 0.72 m converts by dividing by 1000 instead of 100.
12. (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).
13. (c) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
14. (a) No — the cost per metre differs: £2.50/m vs £2.20/m — Method: divide cost by length for each pair and compare the unit rates. Working: £7.50 ÷ 3 = £2.50 per m; £11.00 ÷ 5 = £2.20 per m. The rates are different, so this is NOT direct proportion. Wrong options: 'Yes — both amounts increase' wrongly assumes any increasing relationship is proportional; 'No — because 5 m costs more in total' judges by total cost rather than the rate per metre, which is not valid reasoning on its own; 'Yes — the cost per metre is £2.50 in both cases' miscalculates the second rate (11.00 ÷ 5 is £2.20, not £2.50).
15. (a) 36 — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 126 ÷ 3.5 = 36 N/m². (0.03 comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area, the wrong way round. 129.5 comes from adding 126 and 3.5 instead of dividing. 441 comes from multiplying 126 by 3.5 instead of dividing.)
16. (b) 75 cm² — Areas of similar shapes are in the ratio of the squares of their lengths. Squaring both parts of 3 : 5 gives an area ratio of 9 : 25, so the larger area is 25/9 of the smaller one. Working with the smaller area: 27 ÷ 9 = 3, and 3 × 25 = 75. The area of the larger rectangle is 75 cm².
17. (a) 6 — Method: for inverse proportion the product xy is the same for every pair, so find that product and use it to work back to the missing value. Working: xy = 2 × 15 = 30, so when x = 5 the equation 5y = 30 gives y = 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: 6. The distractors: 37.5 comes from treating the pair as direct proportion and scaling y up with x, 15 × 5 ÷ 2, although in inverse proportion y falls as x rises; 30 is the constant product itself, given as a value of y rather than used to find one; 12 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 3, so 3 is taken off y — which would make the two quantities differ by a constant instead of multiplying to one.
18. (d) 24.6 km/h — Average speed = distance ÷ time, with time in hours. 47 minutes = 47 ÷ 60 hours. 19.3 ÷ (47 ÷ 60) = 19.3 ÷ 47 × 60 = 24.638…, which rounds to 24.6 km/h (1 d.p.). 0.4 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 47 and treating the result as km/h directly, without converting the minutes to hours at all. 41.1 km/h comes from converting minutes to hours by dividing by 100 instead of 60 (19.3 ÷ 47 × 100). 0.3 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 60 instead of converting the 47 minutes to hours first.
19. (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
20. (c) 3 hours — Method: in inverse proportion the product of the two quantities is constant, and here that product is the distance. Working: 60 × 4 = 240 km, so at 80 km/h the time is 240 ÷ 80 = 3. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 5 hours 20 minutes comes from treating the relationship as direct, working out 4 × 80 ÷ 60; 2 hours 40 minutes comes from cutting the time by the fraction the speed rose by — the speed went up by one third, so the time was cut by one third — which is not how inverse proportion works; 4 hours comes from dividing the 240 km by the original speed of 60 km/h again instead of by the new speed.
21. (b) 2.5 hours — Method: when two objects move in opposite directions the gap between them grows at the sum of their speeds, so divide the required gap by that combined rate. Working: 80 + 60 = 140 km of gap each hour, and 350 ÷ 140 = 2.5. Answer: 2.5 hours. The distractors: 17.5 hours comes from subtracting the speeds, 80 − 60 = 20, which is the rate for two cars travelling in the same direction; 5 hours comes from using the mean of the two speeds, 70 km/h, instead of their sum; 4.375 hours comes from dividing 350 by 80 and ignoring the second car altogether.
22. (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
23. (b) 12 days — This is inverse proportion: fewer painters take longer. Multiply the original numbers to find the total painter-days needed: 8 × 6 = 48 painter-days. Divide by the new number of painters: 48 ÷ 4 = 12 days. Working out 6 × 4 ÷ 8 = 3 days treats it as direct proportion, as if fewer painters needed less time. Stopping at 48 gives the total painter-days, not the number of days. Working out 6 + (8 − 4) = 10 days adds the change in the number of painters straight onto the number of days, treating painters and days as the same kind of quantity. 4 painters take 12 days.
24. (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.