Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions across the ratio, proportion and rates of change statements at Foundation tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
- (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.
- (d) A falling curve that never touches either axis — Method: inverse proportion means the product of the two quantities is constant, so P = k ÷ Q; as Q grows P shrinks, and P can never reach zero because k divided by a number is never zero. Working: taking k = 12 as an example, the pairs (1, 12), (2, 6), (3, 4), (6, 2) and (12, 1) drop steeply at first and then flatten out, so the graph is a curve that approaches both axes without meeting either of them. Answer: a falling curve that never touches either axis. The distractors: 'a straight line through the origin' is the graph of direct proportion, P = kQ, which is the opposite relationship; 'a straight line with a negative gradient' is the commonest error, reading 'P falls as Q rises' as a straight line, but on such a line P would drop by the same amount for every increase in Q and would cross the horizontal axis into negative values; 'a straight line crossing the vertical axis above zero' is a relationship of the form P = mQ + c, in which P and Q are not proportional at all.
- (b) 1 : 500 — smallest real distance per cm (5 m), most detail — Method: compare what one centimetre represents in real life for each scale — the scale with the smallest real distance per cm shows the most detail. Working: for 1 : 500, 1 cm represents 500 cm (5 m); for 1 : 5000, 1 cm represents 50 m; for 1 : 50 000, 1 cm represents 500 m. Since 5 m is the smallest, 1 : 500 shows the most detail. Wrong options: '1 : 50 000 — covers the largest real area' wrongly assumes covering more area means more detail, when it is the opposite; '1 : 5000 — the middle value' wrongly assumes the middle scale is automatically the most balanced; '1 : 500 — covers the largest real distance' picks the correct scale but states an incorrect fact, since 1 : 500 actually covers the smallest real distance per cm.
- (b) The 2.4 kg bag, since it costs £1.80 per kg compared with £1.90 per kg for the 1.5 kg bag. — To compare value for money, work out the cost per kilogram for each bag. 1.5 kg bag: £2.85 ÷ 1.5 = £1.90 per kg. 2.4 kg bag: £4.32 ÷ 2.4 = £1.80 per kg. Since £1.80 is less than £1.90, the 2.4 kg bag gives better value. The option comparing £2.85 with £4.32 directly is wrong because it compares the total prices, not the price per kilogram — a bigger bag naturally costs more in total even if it is better value. The option that names the 1.5 kg bag with £1.80 per kg and the 2.4 kg bag with £1.90 per kg has the correct unit prices but has swapped which bag they belong to. The option giving £1.19 per kg and £2.88 per kg comes from dividing each price by the wrong bag's mass (£2.85 ÷ 2.4 and £4.32 ÷ 1.5).
- (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.
- (d) 3 : 5 — Simplify the area ratio: 18 : 50 divides by 2 to give 9 : 25. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so take the square root of each part: the square root of 9 is 3, and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a side length ratio of 3 : 5. Giving 5 : 3 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 9 : 25 is the simplified area ratio, without square-rooting it. Giving 18 : 50 is the area ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (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) £3244.80 — A 4% increase each year means the value becomes 100% + 4% = 104% of the previous year's value, and 104% = 1.04, so the multiplier is 1.04. Multiply by 1.04 for each year: £3000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £3244.80. (£3240.00 comes from using simple interest instead of compound interest: £3000 + 2 × (£3000 × 0.04) = £3240.00. £3120.00 is the value after only 1 year, £3000 × 1.04, forgetting to apply the second year's growth. £244.80 is the interest earned, £3244.80 − £3000, not the total value of the investment.)
- (c) £338.69 — To increase by 12% each year, multiply by 1.12 twice. £270 × 1.12 × 1.12 = £338.688, which rounds to £338.69 (nearest penny, since the third decimal place is 8). £334.80 comes from treating the two 12% increases as a single flat 24% increase applied once instead of compounding: £270 × 1.24 = £334.80. £302.40 comes from applying the 12% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £270 × 1.12 = £302.40. £338.68 comes from rounding £338.688 down to the nearest penny instead of up.
- (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.
- (b) 1500 — The rate is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5 litres per minute. Converting to cm³: 1.5 × 1000 = 1500 cm³ per minute. Getting 3000 comes from converting 3 litres to cm³ first (3000 cm³) and forgetting to divide by the 2 minutes. Getting 750 comes from dividing by the 2 minutes a second time after converting (1500 ÷ 2). Getting 2000 comes from converting the 2 minutes as if it were litres (2 × 1000) instead of using the correct rate of 1.5 litres per minute.
- (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.
- (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.