⚗️ 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. (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. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
4. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (a) 675 ml — How much a jug holds is a volume, and volumes of similar solids scale with the cube of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, so the volume scale factor is 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 = 3.375. The larger jug holds 200 × 3.375 = 675 ml. Multiplying the scale factor by 3 instead of raising it to the power 3 is the mistake to guard against here.
8. (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).
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (c) 7.6 — Density = mass ÷ volume, so 356.5 ÷ 47 = 7.585..., which rounds to 7.6 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). (0.1 comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume, the wrong way round. 7.5 comes from rounding 7.585 down instead of up to 1 decimal place. 403.5 comes from adding the mass and the volume instead of dividing.)
12. (b) 12 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 4, y = 8: √4 = 2, so 8 = k × 2, giving k = 8 ÷ 2 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When x = 9: √9 = 3, so y = 4 × 3 = 12. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself, rather than to √x, gives k = 8 ÷ 4 = 2 and then y = 2 × 9 = 18, which is a different relationship. Multiplying k by the new x-value instead of by its square root gives y = 4 × 9 = 36, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √9 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 3, not the value of y. When x = 9, y = 12.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (b) 120 minutes — Method: find the rate in bottles per minute, then divide the order size by the rate. Working: rate = 810 ÷ 45 = 18 bottles per minute. Time = 2,160 ÷ 18 = 120 minutes. Wrong options: 1,350 minutes comes from subtracting 810 from 2,160 instead of using the rate; 48 minutes comes from dividing the order size by the original time (2,160 ÷ 45) instead of the rate; 108 minutes comes from rounding the rate to 20 bottles per minute before dividing.
18. (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.
19. (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.
20. (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.
21. (c) 15 — Method: the number of cakes is in direct proportion to the mass of flour, so find the multiplier between the two masses and apply it to the number of cakes. Working: 6 ÷ 2 = 3, so there is three times as much flour, and 5 × 3 = 15. Answer: 15. The distractors: 10 comes from multiplying the 5 cakes by 2, the mass in the recipe, instead of by the multiplier 3; 20 comes from multiplying by the difference 6 − 2 = 4, treating a proportion problem as a difference problem; 12 comes from rounding 5 ÷ 2 down to 2 cakes per kilogram and working out 6 × 2.
22. (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.
23. (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.
24. (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.