⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (c) £22.50 — Method: find the cost of 1 kg, then multiply by the mass wanted. Working: £36 ÷ 2.4 = £15 per kilogram, and 1.5 × £15 = £22.50. Answer: £22.50. The distractors: £15 is the price of 1 kg, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; £54 comes from multiplying the £36 by 1.5 without first reducing it to a price per kilogram; £57.60 comes from using the scale factor upside down, multiplying £36 by 2.4 ÷ 1.5 = 1.6 instead of by 1.5 ÷ 2.4.
2. (b) 4.5 m² — The height ratio is 40 : 60, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger bookcase is 1.5 times as tall as the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor, so the wood needed scales by 1.5² = 2.25. 2 × 2.25 = 4.5, so the larger bookcase needs 4.5 m² of wood. Giving 3 m² uses the length scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (2 × 1.5 = 3). Giving 6.75 m² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if wood coverage were a volume (2 × 3.375 = 6.75). Giving 2.25 m² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller bookcase's wood area of 2 m².
3. (b) 15 — Find the multiplier connecting y to x: 10 ÷ 4 = 2.5. Then apply it to the new value of x: 2.5 × 6 = 15. Working out 10 + (6 − 4) = 12 adds the change in x straight onto y instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 10 × 6 = 60 multiplies the given y-value by the new x-value directly, without finding the multiplier first. Writing 10 keeps y the same as before, not realising it must change with x. When x = 6, y = 15.
4. (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.
5. (d) 3 : 2 : 5 — The highest common factor of 45, 30 and 75 is 15. Divide each part by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 75 ÷ 15 = 5, giving 3 : 2 : 5. Giving 9 : 6 : 15 divides by 5, a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 15 : 10 : 25 divides by 3 only, even further from simplest form. Giving 2 : 3 : 5 has the first two parts swapped.
6. (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.
7. (a) £7.80 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ number of hours. £58.50 ÷ 7.5 = £7.80 per hour. £438.75 comes from multiplying the pay by the hours instead of dividing (£58.50 × 7.5). £0.13 comes from dividing the hours by the pay instead of the pay by the hours (7.5 ÷ 58.50). £51.00 comes from subtracting the hours from the pay (£58.50 − 7.5) instead of dividing.
8. (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.
9. (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
10. (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.
11. (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
12. (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.
13. (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.)
17. (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.
18. (b) 19.0 g/cm³ — Density = mass ÷ volume. 342.6 ÷ 18 = 19.0333…, which rounds to 19.0 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). 6166.8 g/cm³ comes from multiplying the mass by the volume instead of dividing (342.6 × 18). 324.6 g/cm³ comes from subtracting the volume from the mass (342.6 − 18) instead of dividing. 0.1 g/cm³ comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume (18 ÷ 342.6 = 0.0525…, rounded to 1 d.p.).
19. (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.
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. (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).
22. (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.
23. (d) The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g — Work out the cost per 100 g of each box. 750 g box: 270p ÷ 7.5 = 36p per 100 g. 500 g box: 195p ÷ 5 = 39p per 100 g. The lower cost per 100 g is the better value, so the 750 g box at 36p per 100 g is the answer. Choosing the 500 g box at 39p per 100 g gets the maths right but picks the higher unit price, not realising a smaller cost per 100 g is the better deal. Choosing the 500 g box because £1.95 is lower than £2.70 compares the total prices without allowing for the different pack sizes at all. Working out 270 ÷ 5 = 54p divides the 750 g box's price by the wrong number of hundred-grams (the 500 g box's), giving a rate that belongs to neither box. The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g, is the better value.
24. (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.