⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
2. (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.
3. (a) £11.70 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ hours worked, so £105.30 ÷ 9 = £11.70 per hour. Working out £105.30 − 9 = £96.30 subtracts the number of hours from the total pay instead of dividing. Working out £105.30 × 9 = £947.70 multiplies total pay by hours worked instead of dividing. Misplacing the decimal point in the correct answer gives £117.00 instead of £11.70. Maya's rate of pay is £11.70 per hour.
4. (d) 120 g — Mass = density × volume, so 0.8 × 150 = 120 g. Working out 150 ÷ 0.8 = 187.5 divides by the density instead of multiplying, the wrong way round for finding a mass. Working out 150 × 8 = 1200 misplaces the decimal point in the density, treating 0.8 g/cm³ as 8 g/cm³. Working out 150 − 0.8 = 149.2 simply subtracts the density from the volume, which does not give a mass. The piece of wood has a mass of 120 g.
5. (a) 10 — Method: two equal fractions can be rearranged by cross-multiplying, multiplying each numerator by the other denominator. Working: 4 × 5 = 2 × x, so 2x = 20 and x = 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from cross-multiplying to 4 × 5 = 20 and stopping there, without dividing by the 2; 8 comes from multiplying the two numerators, 4 × 2; 2.5 comes from working only with the right-hand fraction, 5 ÷ 2, and ignoring the 4.
6. (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.
7. (c) 120 km/h — Method: for a fixed distance the average speed multiplied by the time is constant, and that constant is the distance, so divide the distance by the new time. Working: speed × time = 240, so in 2 hours the speed needed is 240 ÷ 2 = 120 km/h. Answer: 120 km/h. The distractors: 80 km/h is the average speed of the original journey, 240 ÷ 3, which answers for the 3-hour timing rather than the 2-hour one; 160 km/h comes from halving the 3 hours to 1.5 hours and working out 240 ÷ 1.5, instead of using the 2 hours the question gives; 480 km/h comes from multiplying the distance by the 2 hours rather than dividing by it.
8. (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).
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (d) £270 — Method: the £90 is a difference between two shares, so turn it into a number of parts before finding the value of one part. Working: the largest share is 3 parts and the smallest is 1 part, so the difference is 3 − 1 = 2 parts and 2 parts are worth £90; one part = £90 ÷ 2 = £45; the whole amount is 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, so 6 × £45 = £270. Answer: £270. The distractors: £540 comes from treating the £90 as the value of one part and multiplying it by the 6 parts; £180 comes from finding the £45 correctly but adding only the 1-part and 3-part shares and forgetting the middle share; £135 comes from multiplying £45 by 3 and giving the largest share instead of the total.
14. (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.)
15. (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.
16. (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.)
17. (b) 75 cm² — Areas of similar shapes are in the ratio of the squares of their lengths. Squaring both parts of 3 : 5 gives an area ratio of 9 : 25, so the larger area is 25/9 of the smaller one. Working with the smaller area: 27 ÷ 9 = 3, and 3 × 25 = 75. The area of the larger rectangle is 75 cm².
18. (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.
19. (b) £16 — Since cost is proportional to the square root of diameter, C = k√d. Using d = 9, C = 12: √9 = 3, so 12 = k × 3, giving k = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. The equation is C = 4√d. When d = 16: √16 = 4, so C = 4 × 4 = 16. Halving the new diameter instead of taking its square root gives 16 ÷ 2 = 8, and then C = 4 × 8 = 32 — halving a number is not the same as taking its square root, as √16 = 4, not 8. Multiplying k by the diameter itself instead of by its square root gives C = 4 × 16 = 64, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √16 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 4, not the cost. The cost of manufacturing a lens of diameter 16 mm is £16.
20. (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.
21. (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.
22. (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.
23. (b) 4 — Method: find the length scale factor by taking the cube root of the volume scale factor, then square it to get the area scale factor. Working: 8 = 2³, so the length scale factor is 2, and the area scale factor is 2² = 4. Answer: 4. 8 comes from using the volume scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor. 64 comes from squaring the volume scale factor, 8² = 64, instead of first taking its cube root. 2 comes from correctly finding the length scale factor but then forgetting to square it.
24. (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.