⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 24 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area. 68.4 ÷ 2.85 = 24 N/m². 194.94 N/m² comes from multiplying the force by the area instead of dividing (68.4 × 2.85). 65.55 N/m² comes from subtracting the area from the force (68.4 − 2.85) instead of dividing. 0.04 N/m² comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area (2.85 ÷ 68.4).
3. (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.
4. (d) 400 — The area scale factor is the length scale factor squared: 20² = 400, so the real car's surface area is 400 times the model's. 20 comes from using the length scale factor itself, without squaring it. 8000 comes from cubing the length scale factor (20³), instead of squaring it — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 40 comes from doubling the length scale factor (2 × 20), instead of squaring it.
5. (b) 24 — Method: let one part of the ratio be worth x, write both groups in terms of x, and use the fact that the two groups end up equal. Working: the boys are 3x and the girls are 4x; after the 6 boys join, 3x + 6 = 4x, so x = 6; the girls are 4 parts, so 4 × 6 = 24. Answer: 24 girls. The distractors: 18 is the number of boys before the 6 join, which is 3 × 6; 30 comes from adding the 6 new members to the girls as well as to the boys; 42 is the total number of members in the choir before the 6 boys join, the 18 boys and the girls together.
6. (a) 10 — Since y is directly proportional to x², y = kx². Using x = 4, y = 32: 32 = k × 16, so k = 32 ÷ 16 = 2. The equation is y = 2x². When y = 200: x² = 200 ÷ 2 = 100, so x = 10, taking the positive root because the question states that x is positive. Stopping at x² = 100 without taking the square root leaves 100, not the value of x itself. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself gives k = 32 ÷ 4 = 8 and then x = 200 ÷ 8 = 25, which is a different relationship entirely. Multiplying by k instead of dividing when rearranging gives x² = 200 × 2 = 400 and x = 20, which is not this equation rearranged correctly. The value of x when y = 200 is 10.
7. (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).
8. (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.)
9. (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.
10. (a) 60 minutes — Method: for inverse proportion, printers × time is constant. Working: 6 × 40 = 240 (the constant). With 4 printers: 240 ÷ 4 = 60 minutes. Wrong options: 26.7 minutes comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion, scaling the time down as printers decrease (40 × 4 ÷ 6); 24 minutes comes from multiplying the two printer counts together instead of using the constant; 40 minutes comes from not adjusting the time at all for the change in printers.
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. (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).
13. (d) 36 mph — First convert 1 hour 30 minutes to hours: 30 minutes is half an hour, so the time is 1.5 hours. Then divide the distance by the time: 54 ÷ 1.5 = 36 mph. Reading 1 hour 30 minutes as 1.3 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 54 ÷ 1.3 ≈ 41.54 mph. Working out 54 ÷ 30 = 1.8 divides by the number of minutes only, ignoring the hour. Working out 54 × 1.5 = 81 multiplies by the time instead of dividing. The coach's average speed is 36 mph.
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. (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.
16. (a) 45% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is £116 − £80 = £36, and 36 ÷ 80 = 0.45, so 0.45 × 100 = 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 36% comes from quoting the £36 increase as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 31% comes from dividing the £36 increase by the new price £116 instead of by the original £80, which gives 31% to the nearest per cent; 145% is the new price written as a percentage of the original price, which is the whole of the new price rather than the increase.
17. (d) 64 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 25, y = 20: √25 = 5, so 20 = k × 5, giving k = 20 ÷ 5 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When y = 32: √x = 32 ÷ 4 = 8, and x = 8² = 64. Stopping at √x = 8 without squaring leaves the square root of x, not x itself. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself gives k = 20 ÷ 25 = 0.8 and then x = 32 ÷ 0.8 = 40, which is a different relationship entirely. Multiplying instead of dividing when isolating √x gives √x = 32 × 4 = 128, far too large to be a square root here. When y = 32, x = 64.
18. (a) 70 km/h — Method: average speed for a whole journey is the total distance divided by the total time, not the mean of the separate speeds. Working: 3 × 80 = 240 km and 1 × 40 = 40 km, giving 280 km in 3 + 1 = 4 hours, so 280 ÷ 4 = 70. Answer: 70 km/h. The distractors: 60 km/h comes from taking the mean of 80 and 40, which would only be right if equal times were spent at each speed; 280 km/h is the total distance written with a speed unit, from forgetting to divide by the total time; 80 km/h comes from quoting the speed of the longer leg as the average for the whole journey.
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. (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.
21. (a) 4 — Method: find the constant of proportionality from the pair given, write the equation, then substitute the new value of y and solve. Working: k = 21 ÷ 7 = 3, so y = 3x; putting y = 12 gives 12 = 3x, and x = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Answer: 4. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying by the constant instead of dividing by it, 12 × 3, which is the proportion set up upside down; 84 comes from multiplying 12 by the 7 from the first pair, using a value of x as though it were the constant; 9 comes from working out 12 − 3, treating the equation as y = x + 3 rather than y = 3x.
22. (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.
23. (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
24. (a) 2 : 3 — Simplify the volume ratio first: 64 : 216 divides by 8 to give 8 : 27. Volumes scale with the cube of the height ratio, so take the cube root of each part: the cube root of 8 is 2, and the cube root of 27 is 3, giving a height ratio of 2 : 3. Giving 3 : 2 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 8 : 27 is the simplified volume ratio, without cube-rooting it. Giving 64 : 216 is the volume ratio before it has even been simplified.