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
- (a) 1/9 — The ratio copper : tin is 9:1, so write tin over copper: 1/9. (9/1 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, copper over tin. 1/10 comes from comparing the tin to the total mass of the alloy, 1 part out of 10. 9/10 comes from comparing the copper to the total mass of the alloy, 9 parts out of 10.)
- (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.
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (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.
- (b) 1.00 litres — Total volume = 350 + 650 = 1000 cm³. Since 1000 cm³ = 1 litre, the smoothie is 1.00 litre. Using only the orange juice's 650 cm³ and converting that gives 0.65 litres, forgetting the mango juice entirely. Using only the mango juice's 350 cm³ gives 0.35 litres, forgetting the orange juice. Adding both volumes correctly to get 1000 cm³ but not converting to litres leaves the answer as 1000.00, which is the volume in the wrong unit.
- (d) The cyclist's speed, in kilometres per hour — Method: on any straight-line graph the gradient is the change in the quantity on the vertical axis for each 1 unit of the quantity on the horizontal axis, so its meaning is read off the two axis labels. Working: the vertical axis is distance in kilometres and the horizontal axis is time in hours, so the gradient counts kilometres for each hour, and distance for each hour is speed. Answer: the cyclist's speed, in kilometres per hour. The distractors: 'the total distance the cyclist travels, in kilometres' reads the gradient as a value taken off the vertical axis, but a gradient is a rate and no end point of the journey has been given; 'the time the cyclist takes, in hours' names the horizontal axis, which is the quantity the gradient divides by rather than the gradient itself; 'the distance the cyclist travels in 18 hours' treats the 18 as a value of t, when 18 is the steepness of the line and not a point on it.
- (d) £6705 — After the first year: £6400 × 1.08 = £6912. After the second year: £6912 × 0.97 = £6704.64, which rounds to £6705 (nearest pound). £6720 comes from treating the +8% and −3% changes as a single net +5% change applied to the original amount instead of applying each change in turn: £6400 × 1.05 = £6720. £6912 comes from applying only the first year's growth and stopping there, without applying the second year's fall. £7104 comes from adding the two percentages together as +11% and applying that to the original amount instead of applying each change to the correct starting amount in turn: £6400 × 1.11 = £7104.
- (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.
- (a) No — the cost per metre differs: £2.50/m vs £2.20/m — Method: divide cost by length for each pair and compare the unit rates. Working: £7.50 ÷ 3 = £2.50 per m; £11.00 ÷ 5 = £2.20 per m. The rates are different, so this is NOT direct proportion. Wrong options: 'Yes — both amounts increase' wrongly assumes any increasing relationship is proportional; 'No — because 5 m costs more in total' judges by total cost rather than the rate per metre, which is not valid reasoning on its own; 'Yes — the cost per metre is £2.50 in both cases' miscalculates the second rate (11.00 ÷ 5 is £2.20, not £2.50).
- (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) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
- (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.
- (c) 1 : 16 — Work out each area before comparing. Square P has area 3 × 3 = 9 cm². Square Q has area 12 × 12 = 144 cm². The ratio of the areas is 9 : 144, and both parts divide by 9: 9 ÷ 9 = 1 and 144 ÷ 9 = 16, giving 1 : 16. Notice that the sides are in the ratio 1 : 4, and the areas are in the ratio of the squares of those parts, which is what always happens when a length is scaled. Stopping at 1 : 4 would compare the sides and never the areas, and cubing the parts to reach 1 : 64 is the rule for volumes rather than for areas. The order matters too: the question names square P first, so its area must be the first part of the ratio.
- (c) £480.00 — To decrease by 20%, multiply by 0.80 (100% − 20%). £600 × 0.80 = £480.00. £120.00 comes from working out only the decrease (£600 × 0.20) and forgetting to subtract it from the original value. £580.00 comes from subtracting 20 directly instead of 20% of £600. £720.00 comes from multiplying by 1.20, adding the percentage instead of subtracting it.
- (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.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.