⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) 14 litres — Method: find the amount of fuel used per km first, then use it to find the fuel needed for 175 km. Working: 24 ÷ 300 = 0.08 litres per km, and 0.08 × 175 = 14 litres. So 14 litres are needed. Distractor 24 litres comes from assuming the same amount of fuel is used no matter the distance, without scaling. Distractor 21 litres comes from misreading the original distance as 200 km instead of 300 km. Distractor 1.4 litres comes from a decimal-point slip, giving an answer ten times too small.
3. (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.
4. (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
5. (d) 40 — Substitute x = 5 and y = 8 into y = k ÷ x to get 8 = k ÷ 5, so k = 8 × 5 = 40. Getting 13 comes from adding the two numbers (5 + 8) instead of multiplying. Getting 1.6 comes from dividing 8 by 5 instead of multiplying. Getting 3 comes from subtracting the two numbers (8 − 5) instead of multiplying.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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.)
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
12. (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).
13. (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.
14. (b) Car A, 50 km/h — Method: speed = distance ÷ time for each car, then compare. Working: Car A = 150 ÷ 3 = 50 km/h. Car B = 180 ÷ 4 = 45 km/h. Since 50 > 45, Car A is faster, travelling at 50 km/h. Wrong options: Car B, 45 km/h correctly finds Car B's speed but wrongly names the slower car as faster; Car A, 45 km/h picks the correct car but uses Car B's speed by mistake; Car B, 50 km/h picks the wrong car but uses Car A's correct speed value.
15. (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
16. (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.
17. (c) 200 students — Method: find the percentage who have a brother or a sister, taking care that the students with both are not counted twice, then take that percentage from 100% and apply the result to the 400 students. Working: 25% + 40% = 65%, but the 15% with both has been counted in each of those figures, so 65% − 15% = 50% have a brother or a sister; that leaves 100% − 50% = 50%, and 50% of 400 = 200. Answer: 200 students. The distractors: 260 students is 65% of 400, the number with a brother or a sister when the 15% overlap is counted twice; 140 students comes from taking that same uncorrected 65% away from the 400; 300 students comes from subtracting only the 25% with a brother and ignoring the sisters altogether.
18. (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.)
19. (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.
20. (b) €230.00 — Multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate: 200 × 1.15 = 230, so £200 = €230.00. Working out 200 + 1.15 = 201.15 treats the exchange rate as an amount to add rather than a multiplier. Working out 200 × 0.15 = 30 finds only the extra amount earned for every pound and forgets to add it back to the original £200. Working out 200 × 11.5 = 2300.00 misplaces the decimal point in the exchange rate, multiplying by 11.5 instead of 1.15. £200 converts to €230.00.
21. (d) 400 — The area scale factor is the length scale factor squared: 20² = 400, so the real car's surface area is 400 times the model's. 20 comes from using the length scale factor itself, without squaring it. 8000 comes from cubing the length scale factor (20³), instead of squaring it — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 40 comes from doubling the length scale factor (2 × 20), instead of squaring it.
22. (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.
23. (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.)
24. (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.