Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16

Direct and inverse proportion worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Fifteen questions on "direct and inverse proportion" — DfE statement R10. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.

Calculator

VersionsA only A + B A + B + Csame questions, different order

AnswersQuestions only With answer key Key only

CalculatorMixed Non-calculator (Paper 1)Calculator (Papers 2 and 3)

New sheet

Answer key: Direct and inverse proportion worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Maths · GCSE Foundation · R10 · Direct and inverse proportion · Calculator · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(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.
(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).
(c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
(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.
(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.
(c) 54 — Method: y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 18 ÷ 5 = 3.6. At x = 15: y = 3.6 × 15 = 54. Wrong options: 28 comes from adding the change in x (10) onto y instead of scaling; 6 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 5 × 18 = 90, then y = 90 ÷ 15 = 6); 60 comes from rounding the constant up to 4 instead of using 3.6.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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.
(a) 4 — Method: for inverse proportion, x × y always stays the same value. Working: when x = 5 and y = 8, the constant is 5 × 8 = 40. When x = 10, y = 40 ÷ 10 = 4. So y = 4. Distractor 16 comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 8 × 10 ÷ 5. Distractor 3 comes from assuming y decreases by the same amount that x increases, an additive rather than proportional idea. Distractor 0.8 comes from dividing the given y-value, 8, by the new x-value, 10, without first finding the constant.
(c) £4.00 — Find the cost of one pen: £6.40 ÷ 8 = £0.80. Then multiply by 5 pens: £0.80 × 5 = £4.00. Dividing £6.40 by 5 and multiplying by 8 gives £10.24 — that uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling as if 5 pens were more expensive than 8. Stopping at £0.80 only gives the price of one pen. Multiplying the price of one pen by the difference in the number of pens, (8 − 5) × £0.80, gives £2.40 — the cost of the pens NOT bought, not the cost of the 5 pens bought. 5 pens cost £4.00.
(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.
(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.
(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.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.