⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (d) 2:3:5 — The highest common factor of 12, 18 and 30 is 6. Divide every part by 6: 12 ÷ 6 = 2, 18 ÷ 6 = 3, 30 ÷ 6 = 5, giving 2 : 3 : 5. Dividing by 2 instead of 6 gives 6 : 9 : 15, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Dividing by 3 instead of 6 gives 4 : 6 : 10, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified either. Swapping the first two parts gives 3 : 2 : 5, the parts in the wrong order.
2. (a) 2 — Since y is inversely proportional to x², y = k/x². Using x = 2, y = 8: 2² = 4, so 8 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 8 × 4 = 32. The equation is y = 32/x². When x = 4: 4² = 16, so y = 32 ÷ 16 = 2. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to x itself, rather than to x², gives k = 8 × 2 = 16 and then y = 16 ÷ 4 = 4, a different relationship. Using x instead of x² in the new calculation gives y = 32 ÷ 4 = 8, skipping the square. Multiplying by x² instead of dividing by it gives y = 32 × 16 = 512, the wrong operation for an inverse relationship. When x = 4, y = 2.
3. (a) 100 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 7 − 3 = 4 parts, and this is worth 40 beads. Divide to find one part: 40 ÷ 4 = 10. The total number of parts is 7 + 3 = 10, so the total number of beads is 10 × 10 = 100. (40 is just the given difference between gold and silver, not the total. 70 is the number of gold beads only, using 7 parts. 30 is the number of silver beads only, using 3 parts.)
4. (a) 15 cm — Take the square root of each part of the area ratio to find the length ratio: the square root of 4 is 2 and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a length ratio of 2 : 5. Multiply the smaller flag's height by the scale factor 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5: 6 × 2.5 = 15, so the larger flag is 15 cm tall. Giving 37.5 cm uses the area ratio, 25 ÷ 4 = 6.25, directly as the scale factor without square-rooting it first (6 × 6.25 = 37.5). Giving 2.4 cm applies the length ratio the wrong way round, scaling the smaller flag down by 2 ÷ 5 instead of up by 5 ÷ 2 (6 × 0.4 = 2.4). Giving 27 cm adds the difference between the two area-ratio numbers, 25 − 4 = 21, onto the smaller height instead of using it as a scale factor (6 + 21 = 27).
5. (a) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (d) 125 — Since y is directly proportional to x², y = kx² for a constant k. Using x = 3, y = 45: 45 = k × 9, so k = 45 ÷ 9 = 5. The equation is y = 5x². When x = 5: 5² = 25, and 5 × 25 = 125, so y = 125. Reporting 5² = 25 on its own, without multiplying by the constant k, gives only the square of the new x-value, not the value of y. Treating the proportion as if y were proportional to x itself, rather than to x², gives k = 45 ÷ 3 = 15 and then y = 15 × 5 = 75, which is not this relationship. Squaring the new x-value as though squaring meant doubling it instead gives 5 × 10 = 50, not the true square. When x = 5, y = 125.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
12. (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
13. (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.
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. (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.)
16. (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.
17. (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
18. (b) 12 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 5 − 2 = 3 parts, and this is worth 18. Divide to find one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Cats have 2 parts: 2 × 6 = 12. (30 is the number of dogs, using 5 parts instead of 2. 6 is the value of one part — the number of cats is 2 lots of this, not just one. 9 comes from dividing 18 by 2 and stopping there, instead of dividing by the difference in parts, 3, and then multiplying by 2.)
19. (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
20. (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.
21. (a) 20 cm — Method: match the measurement you are given to its own part of the ratio, use it to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts belonging to the measurement asked for. Working: the length is the second measurement listed, so it matches 4 parts and one part = 16 ÷ 4 = 4 cm; the height is 5 parts, so 5 × 4 = 20. Answer: 20 cm. The distractors: 12 cm is the width, which is the 3-part measurement; 4 cm is the value of one part only; 80 cm comes from multiplying the 16 cm by 5 without first dividing by the 4 parts the length is worth.
22. (d) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
23. (d) 3 : 5 — Simplify the area ratio: 18 : 50 divides by 2 to give 9 : 25. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so take the square root of each part: the square root of 9 is 3, and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a side length ratio of 3 : 5. Giving 5 : 3 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 9 : 25 is the simplified area ratio, without square-rooting it. Giving 18 : 50 is the area ratio before it has even been simplified.
24. (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).