Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16

Proportion as equality of ratios worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Fifteen questions on "proportion as equality of ratios" — DfE statement R7. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.

Non-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: Proportion as equality of ratios worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Maths · GCSE Foundation · R7 · Proportion as equality of ratios · Non-calculator · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(d) Yes, because 4 × 9 = 6 × 6 — Method: two ratios are equal when their cross-products are equal, so multiply the first part of each ratio by the second part of the other. Working: 4 × 9 = 36 and 6 × 6 = 36; the two products match, so the ratios are equal, and simplifying both to 2:3 shows the same thing. Answer: yes, because 4 × 9 = 6 × 6. The distractors: the reason that the number 6 appears in both ratios reaches the right verdict from a surface match, since a figure shared by two ratios says nothing about equivalence — 4:6 and 6:5 share a 6 and are not equal; the reason built on 9 − 6 and 6 − 4 compares the differences inside each ratio, 3 against 2, which is additive thinking and ends at a verdict of no; the reason built on 4 × 6 and 6 × 9 multiplies the two parts of each ratio together instead of across the pair, giving 24 against 54 and again a verdict of no.
(c) 25 — Method: divide the larger number by its ratio part to find the value of one part, then multiply by the smaller number's ratio part. Working: 40 ÷ 8 = 5 (value of one part). Smaller number = 5 × 5 = 25. Wrong options: 64 comes from dividing by the smaller ratio part instead of the larger (40 ÷ 5 × 8); 45 comes from adding the value of one part onto 40 instead of scaling down (40 + 5); 35 comes from subtracting the value of one part from 40 (40 − 5) instead of multiplying it by the smaller ratio part.
(b) 9 — Method: divide the known quantity by its ratio number to find the value of one part, then multiply by the other ratio number. Working: 21 ÷ 7 = 3 (value of one part). Red beads = 3 × 3 = 9. Wrong options: 49 comes from dividing by the wrong ratio number (21 ÷ 3 × 7); 24 comes from adding the ratio number for red (3) to 21 instead of scaling; 14 comes from subtracting the ratio number for blue (7) from 21 instead of scaling.
(d) 75 pages — Method: find the number of pages printed in one minute, then scale up to 10 minutes. Working: 45 ÷ 6 = 7.5 pages per minute, so 7.5 × 10 = 75 pages. Answer: 75 pages. 27 pages comes from using the ratio upside down, 45 × 6 ÷ 10, instead of finding the rate per minute first. 55 pages comes from simply adding the extra minutes, 10, onto the original number of pages, 45. 70 pages comes from rounding the rate down to 7 pages per minute before multiplying by 10, instead of using the exact rate of 7.5.
(d) £24 — Add the parts of the ratio: 2 + 3 + 7 = 12. Find the value of one part: £96 ÷ 12 = £8. Cara's share is 3 parts: 3 × £8 = £24. (£16 is Ben's share, 2 × £8, not Cara's. £56 is Dev's share, 7 × £8, not Cara's. £28.80 comes from wrongly adding the ratio parts as 10 instead of 12, giving one part = £9.60.)
(c) £21 — Method: the two amounts are in the same ratio as 5:3, so write 5:3 = 35:x, find the value of one part and then take the number of parts asked for. Working: Harry's £35 is 5 parts, so one part is £35 ÷ 5 = £7; Isla has 3 parts, so 3 × £7 = £21. Answer: £21. The distractors: £7 is the value of a single part, given as Isla's share instead of being multiplied by the 3 parts she has; £28 comes from finding one part correctly and then working out £35 − £7, subtracting one part from Harry's money instead of taking three parts; £33 comes from treating the ratio additively — the parts differ by 5 − 3 = 2, so £2 is taken off Harry's £35, but a ratio compares by multiplying, not by subtracting.
(c) 250 miles — Find the distance travelled in 1 hour: 150 ÷ 3 = 50 miles. Multiply by 5 hours: 50 × 5 = 250 miles. Giving 300 miles doubles the original distance (150 × 2 = 300) using a scale factor of 2 instead of the correct 5 ÷ 3. Giving 200 miles adds only one extra hour's distance, 50, instead of the two extra hours actually needed (150 + 50 = 200, rather than 150 + 100). Giving 90 miles divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (150 × 3 ÷ 5 = 90).
(a) 18 — Method: write both numbers with the same multiplier, turn the second ratio into an equation by cross-multiplying, solve for the multiplier and then build A from it. Working: let A = 3k and B = 5k, so 3k : (5k + 6) = 1 : 2; cross-multiplying gives 2 × 3k = 5k + 6, so 6k = 5k + 6 and k = 6; A = 3 × 6 = 18. Answer: 18, and the check works, because B = 30, B + 6 = 36 and 18:36 = 1:2. The distractors: 9 comes from reading the 6 as the difference between the two numbers — 5 − 3 = 2 parts, so one part is 3 and A is 3 × 3 — but the 6 is added to B, it is not the gap between A and B; 6 comes from solving A : (A + 6) = 1 : 2, adding the 6 to A instead of to B; 30 is the value of B, found from the correct multiplier but given in place of A.
(c) 5 hours — Method: measure the job in decorator-hours, which is in the same ratio as the number of rooms, then share the decorator-hours between the decorators available. Working: 5 decorators × 6 hours = 30 decorator-hours for 3 rooms, so one room takes 30 ÷ 3 = 10 decorator-hours; 5 rooms take 5 × 10 = 50 decorator-hours; shared between 10 decorators that is 50 ÷ 10 = 5 hours. Answer: 5 hours. The distractors: 3 hours comes from halving the 6 hours because the number of decorators doubles, while forgetting that there are also more rooms to paint; 10 hours comes from scaling the 6 hours up for the rooms only, 6 × 5 ÷ 3, and leaving the workforce at 5 decorators; 6 hours comes from assuming that doubling the decorators and increasing the rooms cancel each other out, which they do not, because the rooms rise by a factor of 5/3 and the workforce by a factor of 2.
(c) £450 — Method: use the equal ratios 4:5 = 200:x to find Grace's savings, then add the two amounts. Working: Noah's £200 is 4 parts, so one part is £200 ÷ 4 = £50; Grace has 5 parts, so 5 × £50 = £250; altogether £200 + £250 = £450. Answer: £450. The distractors: £250 is Grace's savings on their own, which is the middle step rather than the total the question asks for; £360 comes from reading £200 as the 5 parts instead of the 4, giving one part of £40 and a total of 9 × £40; £400 comes from doubling £200, which treats the two savings as equal and ignores the ratio altogether.
(a) 160 g — Method: use the ratio 20:100 to find the mass of the whole solution from the mass of acid, then take the acid away to leave the water. Working: 20:100 = 40:m, and 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so m = 2 × 100 = 200 g of solution; the water is 200 − 40 = 160 g. Answer: 160 g. The distractors: 200 g is the mass of the whole solution, which is the middle step and includes the acid the question asks you to leave out; 8 g comes from working out 20% of 40 g, which treats the 40 g as the whole solution rather than as the 20% inside it; 10 g comes from reading the 40 g as the 80% that is water, giving a solution of 50 g and a difference of 50 − 40.
(c) 6.00 m — Method: the ratio of height to shadow length is the same for both objects. Working: road sign height ÷ shadow = 3 ÷ 5 = 0.6. Lamppost height = 0.6 × 10 = 6.00 m. Wrong options: 16.67 m comes from inverting the ratio, using shadow ÷ height instead of height ÷ shadow (10 × 5 ÷ 3); 8.00 m comes from adding the difference between the two shadow lengths to the road sign's height instead of scaling (3 + (10 − 5)); 1.50 m comes from multiplying by the ratio of the two shadow lengths the wrong way round (3 × 5 ÷ 10).
(d) 450 g — Find the amount of rice per person: 300 ÷ 4 = 75 g. Multiply by the new number of people: 75 × 6 = 450 g. Giving 200 g swaps which number the rice is divided and multiplied by (300 ÷ 6 × 4 = 200), scaling the wrong way. Giving 180 g uses 4 + 6 = 10 as the base instead of the original 4 people (300 × 6 ÷ 10 = 180). Giving 400 g assumes each of the 2 extra people needs 300 ÷ 6 = 50 g on top of the original 300 g (300 + 2 × 50 = 400), rather than scaling the whole amount in proportion.
(a) 20% — Method: a percentage concentration compares the sugar with the whole solution, so add the two masses to get the mass of solution and then scale the ratio of sugar to solution to a denominator of 100. Working: the solution has a mass of 200 + 50 = 250 g; sugar:solution = 50:250, and scaling to per 100 gives 50 ÷ 250 × 100 = 20, so the ratio is 20:100. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 25% comes from comparing the sugar with the 200 g of water, 50:200, rather than with the whole solution; 80% is the percentage of the solution that is water, 200:250, which answers for the wrong part of the mixture; 0.2% comes from working out 50 ÷ 250 = 0.2 and writing that decimal down as a percentage without multiplying by 100.
(a) Yes — dividing both parts of 6 : 15 by 3 gives 2 : 5 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor and compare. Working: the highest common factor of 6 and 15 is 3. 6 ÷ 3 = 2 and 15 ÷ 3 = 5, giving 2 : 5, so Ollie is correct. Wrong options: '6 : 15 simplifies to 3 : 5' divides incorrectly, giving the wrong simplified ratio; 'cannot simplify a ratio that does not start with an even number' states a false rule — any ratio can be simplified if its parts share a common factor; '15 ÷ 6 is not a whole number, so it cannot be simplified' wrongly tries to divide one part by the other instead of finding a common factor.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.