⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (b) 5 litres — Method: adding water changes the total volume but adds no salt, so work out the volume of salt, then the total volume that makes that salt 20% of the mixture, then the extra water. Working: 30% of 10 litres is 0.3 × 10 = 3 litres of salt. For the same 3 litres to be 20% of the new mixture, the new total volume is 3 ÷ 0.2 = 15 litres. The water added is the extra volume, 15 − 10 = 5 litres. Answer: 5 litres. The distractors: 3 litres is the volume of salt in the solution, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; 15 litres is the total volume of the new mixture, which counts the 10 litres already in the container as water that was poured in; 2 litres comes from taking 20% of the original 10 litres, applying the new percentage to the old volume instead of to the new one.
2. (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.
3. (d) 1:4 — Convert 1.4 l to millilitres: 1.4 l = 1400 ml. The ratio is 350 : 1400. Divide both parts by 350: 350 ÷ 350 = 1 and 1400 ÷ 350 = 4, giving 1 : 4. Misreading 1.4 l as 14 (moving the decimal point) gives 350 : 14, which simplifies to 25 : 1 — a very different, implausible ratio. Dividing by 175 instead of 350 gives 2 : 8, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 4 : 1, litres to millilitres the wrong way round.
4. (b) 35 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area. 84 ÷ 2.4 = 35 N/m². 201.6 N/m² comes from multiplying the force by the area instead of dividing (84 × 2.4). 81.6 N/m² comes from subtracting the area from the force (84 − 2.4) instead of dividing. 0.03 N/m² comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area (2.4 ÷ 84).
5. (c) 40 minutes — Method: this is inverse proportion — fewer taps means longer, not shorter — so the number of taps × the time taken stays constant. Working: 6 × 20 = 120, and with 3 taps the time is 120 ÷ 3 = 40 minutes. So 3 taps take 40 minutes. Distractor 10 minutes comes from treating it as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 20 × 3 ÷ 6. Distractor 30 minutes comes from halving the number of taps and adding half the original time, 20 + 10, instead of doubling the time. Distractor 17 minutes comes from subtracting the number of taps removed, 3, directly from the original time, 20.
6. (c) 1 : 25 — The radii are in the ratio 4 : 20, which simplifies to 1 : 5. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so the area ratio is 1² : 5² = 1 : 25. Giving 1 : 5 uses the radius ratio without squaring it. Giving 1 : 10 doubles the radius ratio instead of squaring it. Giving 25 : 1 has the areas the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger.
7. (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.)
8. (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.)
9. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (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.
14. (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.)
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (d) 500 ml — Varnish covers a surface, so the amount needed scales with the area scale factor, which is the square of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5, so the area scale factor is 2.5 × 2.5 = 6.25. The varnish needed for the larger statue is 80 × 6.25 = 500 ml. Using 2.5 on its own would scale a length, not a surface.
20. (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.
21. (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.
22. (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
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. (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.