⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (b) 900 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 45 ÷ 0.05 = 900 N/m². Working out 45 ÷ 5 = 9 misplaces the decimal point in the area, treating 0.05 m² as 5 m². Working out 45 × 0.05 = 2.25 multiplies force and area together instead of dividing. Working out 45 + 0.05 = 45.05 simply adds the two given numbers, which does not give a pressure at all. The pressure on the ground is 900 N/m².
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (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).
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (c) 48 mm — Method: extension = k × force, where k = extension ÷ force. Working: k = 12 ÷ 5 = 2.4 mm per N. At 20 N: extension = 2.4 × 20 = 48 mm. Wrong options: 32 mm comes from adding the extension and force numbers instead of scaling (12 + 20); 3 mm comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (12 × 5 ÷ 20); 36 mm comes from using an incorrect scale factor of 3 between the forces instead of the correct factor of 4 (20 ÷ 5).
8. (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.
9. (a) No — the cost per metre differs: £2.50/m vs £2.20/m — Method: divide cost by length for each pair and compare the unit rates. Working: £7.50 ÷ 3 = £2.50 per m; £11.00 ÷ 5 = £2.20 per m. The rates are different, so this is NOT direct proportion. Wrong options: 'Yes — both amounts increase' wrongly assumes any increasing relationship is proportional; 'No — because 5 m costs more in total' judges by total cost rather than the rate per metre, which is not valid reasoning on its own; 'Yes — the cost per metre is £2.50 in both cases' miscalculates the second rate (11.00 ÷ 5 is £2.20, not £2.50).
10. (d) 20 — Method: equivalent ratios are linked by a single multiplier, so find it from the part you know and apply it to the other part. Working: 15 ÷ 3 = 5, so the multiplier is 5, and 4 × 5 = 20. Answer: 20. The distractors: 16 comes from adding the difference between the ratio parts, 4 − 3 = 1, to 15, treating the ratio as a difference; 60 comes from multiplying 15 by 4 without first dividing by 3; 11.25 comes from using the ratio the wrong way round, working out 15 × 3 ÷ 4.
11. (c) 1.05 litres — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the total volume, then find the share for pineapple juice. Working: the ratio 5:3:2 has 5 + 3 + 2 = 10 parts, so one part is 3.5 ÷ 10 = 0.35 litres, and the pineapple juice is 3 × 0.35 = 1.05 litres. So 1.05 litres of pineapple juice is needed. Distractor 1.75 litres is the volume of orange juice, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.7 litres is the volume of lemonade, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.35 litres is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
12. (a) 70 km/h — Method: average speed for a whole journey is the total distance divided by the total time, not the mean of the separate speeds. Working: 3 × 80 = 240 km and 1 × 40 = 40 km, giving 280 km in 3 + 1 = 4 hours, so 280 ÷ 4 = 70. Answer: 70 km/h. The distractors: 60 km/h comes from taking the mean of 80 and 40, which would only be right if equal times were spent at each speed; 280 km/h is the total distance written with a speed unit, from forgetting to divide by the total time; 80 km/h comes from quoting the speed of the longer leg as the average for the whole journey.
13. (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (c) 36 cm — A perimeter is built from lengths, so it is multiplied by the length scale factor and not by the square of it. The scale factor from the smaller rectangle to the larger one is 10 ÷ 5 = 2. The larger perimeter is therefore 18 × 2 = 36 cm.
18. (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.
19. (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.)
20. (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.
21. (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.)
22. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
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. (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.