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.

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 · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(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.
(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.
(d) 600 g — Find the flour used for one person: 240 ÷ 6 = 40 g per person. Then scale up to 15 people: 40 × 15 = 600 g. Dividing 240 by 15 and then multiplying by 6 gives 96 g — that uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down instead of up. Stopping at 40 g only gives the amount for one person, not for 15. Adding 15 − 6 = 9 to 240 gives 249 g, which treats the number of people and the grams of flour as if they were the same kind of quantity — proportion means scaling, not adding. The recipe needs 600 g of flour.
(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.
(b) 12 — Method: work out what one part of the ratio is worth, then multiply that by the number of parts in the other share. Working: the smaller number matches the 2 parts, so 8 ÷ 2 = 4 for one part, and 3 × 4 = 12. Answer: 12. The distractors: 16 comes from multiplying 8 by 2, the ratio part that belongs to the smaller number; 24 comes from multiplying 8 by 3 without first finding the value of one part; 9 comes from adding the difference between the ratio parts, 3 − 2 = 1, to 8.
(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.
(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.
(a) £54 — Method: for direct proportion, wage = rate × hours. Working: £9 × 6 = £54. Wrong options: £15 comes from adding the rate and the hours instead of multiplying (£9 + 6); £63 comes from using 7 hours instead of 6; £1.50 comes from dividing the rate by the hours instead of multiplying (£9 ÷ 6).
(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.
(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.
(a) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
(a) x = 6, y = 27 — Method: for direct proportion, y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 9 ÷ 2 = 4.5. At x = 6: y = 4.5 × 6 = 27. Wrong options: x = 6, y = 13 comes from adding the change in x (4) onto y instead of scaling by k; x = 6, y = 3 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 2 × 9 = 18, then y = 18 ÷ 6 = 3); x = 6, y = 24 comes from rounding the constant of proportionality down to 4 instead of using 4.5.
(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.
(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.
(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).

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.