⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
2. (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.
3. (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
4. (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
5. (a) 45% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is £116 − £80 = £36, and 36 ÷ 80 = 0.45, so 0.45 × 100 = 45%. Answer: 45%. The distractors: 36% comes from quoting the £36 increase as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 31% comes from dividing the £36 increase by the new price £116 instead of by the original £80, which gives 31% to the nearest per cent; 145% is the new price written as a percentage of the original price, which is the whole of the new price rather than the increase.
6. (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.)
7. (c) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
8. (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.
9. (d) 3:8 — Convert 2 hours to minutes: 2 hours = 120 minutes. The ratio is 45 : 120. The highest common factor of 45 and 120 is 15. Divide both parts by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3 and 120 ÷ 15 = 8, giving 3 : 8. Leaving the hours unconverted gives 45 : 2 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 5 instead of 15 gives 9 : 24, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 3, hours to minutes instead of minutes to hours.
10. (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
11. (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.
12. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
13. (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.
14. (c) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
15. (c) 27 : 64 — For similar solids, the ratio of volumes is the ratio of lengths cubed: 3³ : 4³ = 27 : 64. 3 : 4 comes from using the height ratio itself as the volume ratio, without cubing it at all. 9 : 16 comes from squaring each part instead of cubing (3² : 4²) — squaring is the rule for area, not volume. 27 : 4 comes from cubing only the first part of the ratio (3³ = 27), and leaving the second part uncubed.
16. (c) 1 : 27 — The edge lengths are in the ratio 2 : 6, which simplifies to 1 : 3. Volumes scale with the cube of the length ratio, so the volume ratio is 1³ : 3³ = 1 : 27. Giving 1 : 3 uses the length ratio without cubing it. Giving 1 : 9 squares the length ratio, which is the rule for areas, instead of cubing it, which is the rule for volumes. Giving 27 : 1 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger as the question asks.
17. (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.
18. (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.
19. (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
20. (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.
21. (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.
22. (c) 1 : 4 — Convert to the same unit: 1.2 litres = 1200 ml, since 1 litre = 1000 ml. This gives the ratio 300 : 1200. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 300, to get 1 : 4. Giving 3 : 12 divides by 100 only, which is a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 1 : 1.2 has not converted 1.2 litres into millilitres, so the two parts are not in the same unit. Giving 4 : 1 swaps the order, comparing water to concentrate instead of concentrate to water.
23. (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.
24. (c) 3 hours — Method: inverse proportion means speed × time is constant for the journey, so find that constant and divide it by the new speed. Working: 60 × 2 = 120, which is the distance in kilometres; at 40 km/h the time is 120 ÷ 40 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 1.5 hours is the ratio of the speeds, 60 ÷ 40, given as a time instead of being used to scale the original 2 hours; 1 hour 20 minutes comes from treating time as directly proportional to speed, 2 × 40 ÷ 60, which has the slower train arriving sooner; 2 hours comes from finding the constant 120 and then dividing it by the original 60 km/h again, so the time never changes.