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) 8 cm — Convert 4 m to centimetres: 4 m = 400 cm. The scale 1 : 50 means the real object is 50 times the plan, so the plan length is the real length divided by 50: 400 ÷ 50 = 8, giving 8 cm. Using the length in metres instead of centimetres, 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08, gives 0.08 cm, far too small to draw. Misplacing a digit in the division gives 80 cm, ten times too big. Multiplying instead of dividing, 400 × 50 = 20 000, gives 20 000 cm — using the scale in the wrong direction, as if going from plan to real life instead of real life to plan.
(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).
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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) 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.
(b) 5 m — A scale of 1 : 500 means 1 cm on the plan represents 500 cm in real life. Converting to metres: 500 ÷ 100 = 5 m. 500 m comes from forgetting to convert the 500 cm into metres at all. 50 m comes from dividing by 10 instead of 100 when converting centimetres to metres: 500 ÷ 10 = 50. 0.5 m comes from dividing by 1000 instead of 100, as if converting to kilometres instead of metres: 500 ÷ 1000 = 0.5.
(b) 0.22 km — The real one-way distance is 4.4 × 2500 = 11000 cm. Converting units: 11000 ÷ 100 = 110 m, and 110 ÷ 1000 = 0.11 km. Since the jogger runs there and back, the total distance is 0.11 × 2 = 0.22 km. 0.11 km comes from working out only the one-way distance and forgetting the return journey. 220 km comes from correctly doubling the one-way distance in metres, 110 × 2 = 220, but leaving it mislabelled as kilometres instead of converting metres to kilometres. 110 km comes from working out only the one-way distance in metres, 110, and mislabelling it as kilometres.
(a) 600 cm — Method: a scale of 1 : n means each 1 cm on the plan stands for n cm in real life, so multiply the plan length by the scale. Working: 3 × 200 = 600. Answer: 600 cm. The distractors: 60 cm comes from multiplying by 20 instead of 200; 203 cm comes from adding the scale to the plan length instead of multiplying; 6000 cm comes from reading the scale as 1 : 2000.
(d) 30 cm — Convert 300 m to centimetres: 300 m = 30 000 cm. The scale 1 : 1000 means the map length is the real length divided by 1000: 30 000 ÷ 1000 = 30, giving 30 cm. Dividing the unconverted 300 (metres, not centimetres) by 1000 gives 0.3 cm, far too small to be a real map measurement. Dividing by 10 000 instead of 1 000 gives 3 cm, ten times too small. Multiplying instead of dividing, 300 × 1000 = 300 000, gives 300 000 cm — using the scale the wrong way round, as if the map were bigger than real life.
(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.
(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.
(c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.