⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) 30 km — First convert 1 hour 15 minutes to hours: 15 minutes is a quarter of an hour, so the time is 1.25 hours. Then multiply by the speed: 24 × 1.25 = 30 km. Reading 15 minutes as 0.15 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 24 × 1.15 = 27.6 km. Working out 24 × 75 = 1800 multiplies by the number of minutes instead of converting to hours first. Working out 24 ÷ 1.25 = 19.2 divides by the time instead of multiplying. The cyclist travels 30 km.
3. (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.
4. (c) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
5. (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).
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (d) 40 — Substitute x = 5 and y = 8 into y = k ÷ x to get 8 = k ÷ 5, so k = 8 × 5 = 40. Getting 13 comes from adding the two numbers (5 + 8) instead of multiplying. Getting 1.6 comes from dividing 8 by 5 instead of multiplying. Getting 3 comes from subtracting the two numbers (8 − 5) instead of multiplying.
9. (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
10. (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.)
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (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).
14. (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.
15. (d) 48 — Find the rate first: 18 ÷ 3 = 6 bottles per minute. Then apply it to the new time: 6 × 8 = 48 bottles. Working out 18 + (8 − 3) = 23 adds the extra 5 minutes onto the number of bottles instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 18 × 8 = 144 multiplies the given number of bottles by the new number of minutes without finding the rate first. Writing 18 keeps the count the same, not realising it must change with the time. In 8 minutes the machine fills 48 bottles.
16. (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
17. (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
18. (b) 25 m/s — Convert km/h to m/s by multiplying by 1000 (km to m) and dividing by 3600 (hours to seconds): 90 × 1000 ÷ 3600 = 25 m/s. Working out 90 ÷ 60 = 1.5 converts using 60, as if going from hours to minutes rather than to seconds. Working out 90 × 3.6 = 324 multiplies by 3.6 instead of dividing by it, going the wrong way between the units. Working out 90 × 1000 = 90000 converts kilometres to metres but forgets to convert hours to seconds at all. The train's speed is 25 m/s.
19. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
20. (b) 75 g — Method: split the total mass into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the mass of tin. Working: the ratio 7:3 has 7 + 3 = 10 parts, so one part is 250 ÷ 10 = 25 g, and the mass of tin is 3 × 25 = 75 g. So the alloy contains 75 g of tin. Distractor 175 g is the mass of copper, not tin. Distractor 125 g comes from splitting the alloy into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 25 g is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
21. (c) 12 m — Method: the perimeter of a rectangle is twice the sum of the length and the width, so half the perimeter is one length plus one width; split that half using the ratio. Working: half of 64 is 64 ÷ 2 = 32 m, the ratio 5:3 has 5 + 3 = 8 parts, so one part is 32 ÷ 8 = 4 m, and the width is 3 × 4 = 12 m. So the width is 12 m. Distractor 20 m is the length, 5 parts, not the width. Distractor 24 m comes from splitting the whole perimeter, 64 m, into 8 parts and multiplying by 3, forgetting to halve the perimeter first. Distractor 8 m comes from the same slip stopped one step earlier: splitting the whole perimeter into 8 parts, 64 ÷ 8 = 8, and giving that instead of the width.
22. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
23. (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
24. (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)