Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16

Scale factors, scale diagrams and maps worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Fifteen questions on "scale factors, scale diagrams and maps" — DfE statement R2. 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: Scale factors, scale diagrams and maps worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Maths · GCSE Foundation · R2 · Scale factors, scale diagrams and maps · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(d) 135 m² — Method: for area, the scale factor must be squared. Working: area scale = 300² = 90 000. 15 × 90 000 = 1,350,000 cm². Convert to m² by dividing by 10 000: 1,350,000 ÷ 10 000 = 135 m². Wrong options: 0.45 m² comes from using the linear scale factor (×300) instead of squaring it; 1,350,000 m² comes from forgetting to convert the answer from cm² to m²; 13,500 m² comes from dividing by 100 instead of 10 000 when converting units.
(c) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
(d) 15 cm — An enlargement by scale factor 3 means every length is multiplied by 3: 5 × 3 = 15 cm. Dividing by the scale factor instead, 5 ÷ 3 = 1.7 (to 1 d.p.), gives 1.7 cm — dividing shrinks the plan rather than enlarging it. Adding the scale factor instead of multiplying, 5 + 3 = 8, gives 8 cm. Squaring the scale factor, as you would for an area, 5 × 3² = 45, gives 45 cm — length scales by the factor itself, not its square.
(a) 12 m² — Real length = 8 × 50 = 400 cm = 4 m. Real width = 6 × 50 = 300 cm = 3 m. Real area = 4 × 3 = 12 m². Scaling the plan area (8 × 6 = 48 cm²) by 50 instead of by 50 squared gives 48 × 50 = 2400 cm² = 0.24 m² — area scales by the square of the length scale factor, not the scale factor itself. Multiplying the real dimensions in centimetres, 400 × 300 = 120 000, and calling the result 120 000 m² mistakes square centimetres for square metres. Converting only the length to metres and leaving the width as 6 (treating centimetres as metres), 4 × 6 = 24, gives 24 m², from a scaling that was never finished.
(c) Map A, where the distance is 40 cm — 10 km = 1,000,000 cm. On Map A: 1000000 ÷ 25000 = 40 cm. On Map B: 1000000 ÷ 50000 = 20 cm. Since 40 cm is longer than 20 cm, the same real distance appears longer on Map A, the map with the smaller scale number. 'Map B, where the distance is 20 cm' has the correct working for Map B but names the wrong map as the one with the longer length. 'Map A, where the distance is 20 cm' correctly identifies Map A but pairs it with Map B's length. 'Map B, where the distance is 40 cm' correctly identifies Map A's length but attaches it to the wrong map.
(b) 1:200000 — '1 cm represents 2 km' means 1 cm on the map is 2 km in real life. Convert 2 km into centimetres, the same unit as the 1: 2 km = 2000 m = 200 000 cm. So the scale is 1 : 200 000. Converting only as far as metres gives 1 : 2000 — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Losing a zero in the conversion gives 1 : 20 000, ten times too small. Writing 1 : 2 without converting units at all compares 1 cm to 2 km directly, which is not a valid ratio since the units do not match.
(c) 1.25 cm — Method: find the real length using the first map's scale, then use the second map's scale to find its drawn length. Working: real length = 5 × 20 000 = 100 000 cm. On the second map: 100 000 ÷ 80 000 = 1.25 cm. Wrong options: 20 cm comes from inverting the ratio of the two scales (5 × 80 000 ÷ 20 000); 5 cm comes from wrongly assuming the length looks the same on both maps; 12.5 cm comes from dropping a zero from the second scale factor and dividing by 8 000 instead of 80 000 (100 000 ÷ 8 000).
(d) 1 : 2500 — Method: convert the real-world measurement to the same unit as the drawing (centimetres) before writing the ratio. Working: 25 m = 2500 cm, so the scale is 1 : 2500. Wrong options: 1 : 25 comes from not converting metres to centimetres at all; 1 : 250 comes from converting metres to centimetres using ×10 instead of ×100; 1 : 2.5 comes from converting in the wrong direction (treating 25 m as 2.5 cm).
(a) 8 cm — Method: a scale of 1 : n means the real distance is n times the distance on the map, so to go from the real distance back to the map distance, put both lengths in the same unit and then divide by the scale. Working: 1 km = 100 000 cm, so 8 km = 8 × 100 000 = 800 000 cm; 800 000 ÷ 100 000 = 8. Answer: 8 cm. The distractors: 800000 cm comes from converting the 8 km into centimetres and stopping there, so the division by the scale — the inverse operation the question asks for — is never done; 80 cm comes from taking a metre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8 × 1000 × 1000 = 8 000 000 cm and gives 8 000 000 ÷ 100 000 = 80; 0.08 cm comes from taking a kilometre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8000 cm and gives 8000 ÷ 100 000 = 0.08.
(b) 1500 m — Method: multiply the map length by the scale to get the real length in centimetres, then divide by 100 to change centimetres into metres. Working: 3 × 50 000 = 150 000 cm, and 150 000 ÷ 100 = 1500. Answer: 1500 m. The distractors: 15000 m comes from dividing the 150 000 cm by 10 instead of 100; 150 m comes from dividing by 1000, the conversion for kilometres; 50000 m comes from writing the scale itself as the answer and ignoring the 3 cm measured on the map.
(c) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
(a) 1 : 2 000 000 — Method: a scale is a ratio between two lengths written in the same unit, reduced so that the map distance is 1. Working: 120 km = 120 × 1000 × 100 = 12 000 000 cm, so the ratio is 6 : 12 000 000, and dividing both parts by 6 gives 1 : 2 000 000. Answer: 1 : 2 000 000. The distractors: 1 : 12 000 000 comes from writing the real length in centimetres without dividing by the 6 cm on the map; 1 : 200 000 comes from taking 120 km as 1 200 000 cm, one conversion step short, before dividing by 6; 1 : 20 000 comes from converting 120 km to 120 000 m and treating those metres as centimetres.
(b) 3 km — Method: multiply by the scale factor to get the real length in centimetres, then convert to kilometres. Working: 7.5 × 40 000 = 300 000 cm. 300 000 ÷ 100 000 = 3 km. Wrong options: 30 km comes from dividing by 10 000 instead of 100 000 when converting to kilometres; 3000 km comes from dividing by 100 instead of 100 000; 0.3 km comes from dividing by 1 000 000, an extra factor of 10 too many.
(a) 1.5 km — Multiply the map length by the scale: 6 × 25 000 = 150 000 cm. Convert to kilometres: 150 000 cm = 1.5 km. Dividing by only 1000 instead of the full conversion when changing units gives 150 km, a hundred times too large. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 6 × 2500 = 15 000 cm = 0.15 km, a hundred times too small. Leaving the answer as 150 000 without converting units at all, and calling it 150 000 km, mistakes centimetres for kilometres completely.
(b) 20 km — The scale 2 cm : 5 km means each 1 cm on the map represents 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5 km in real life. The footpath is 8 cm on the map, so its real length is 8 × 2.5 = 20 km. 40 km comes from multiplying 8 by 5 directly, ignoring that the scale's '2 cm' has to be divided out first: 8 × 5 = 40. 3.2 km comes from dividing 8 by 2.5 instead of multiplying: 8 ÷ 2.5 = 3.2. 5 km comes from multiplying 2.5 by the scale's '2' instead of by the footpath's 8 cm: 2.5 × 2 = 5.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.