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
- (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)
- (a) £11.70 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ hours worked, so £105.30 ÷ 9 = £11.70 per hour. Working out £105.30 − 9 = £96.30 subtracts the number of hours from the total pay instead of dividing. Working out £105.30 × 9 = £947.70 multiplies total pay by hours worked instead of dividing. Misplacing the decimal point in the correct answer gives £117.00 instead of £11.70. Maya's rate of pay is £11.70 per hour.
- (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
- (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) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
- (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.)
- (a) 2 : 3 — Simplify the volume ratio first: 64 : 216 divides by 8 to give 8 : 27. Volumes scale with the cube of the height ratio, so take the cube root of each part: the cube root of 8 is 2, and the cube root of 27 is 3, giving a height ratio of 2 : 3. Giving 3 : 2 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 8 : 27 is the simplified volume ratio, without cube-rooting it. Giving 64 : 216 is the volume ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (c) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (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) £30.00 — The gradient is (130 − 70) ÷ (5 − 2) = 60 ÷ 3 = £20 per hour. Using the point (2, 70): the cost for 2 hours at £20 per hour is 20 × 2 = £40, so the call-out fee is 70 − 40 = £30. Taking the C-value of the first point as the fee without subtracting the hourly cost gives £70.00 — but that point already includes 2 hours of the hourly rate. Using the gradient itself as the fee, £20.00, confuses the rate per hour with the fixed charge. Subtracting 20 × 3 = 60 instead of 20 × 2 = 40 (using the wrong h-value) gives 70 − 60 = £10.00.
- (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.
- (c) £7617.60 — To decrease by 8% each year, multiply by 0.92 (100% − 8%) twice. £9000 × 0.92 × 0.92 = £7617.60. £7560.00 comes from treating the two 8% decreases as a single flat 16% decrease applied once instead of compounding: £9000 × 0.84 = £7560.00. £8280.00 comes from applying the 8% decrease only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £9000 × 0.92 = £8280.00. £10497.60 comes from multiplying by 1.08 twice, increasing the value instead of decreasing it: £9000 × 1.08 × 1.08 = £10497.60.
- (d) 3200 × 0.88³ — A fall of 12% leaves 88% of the value, because 100 − 12 = 88, and 88% written as a decimal multiplier is 0.88. Decay repeats that multiplier once for each year, so over 3 years it is applied three times: 0.88 × 0.88 × 0.88, which is written 0.88³. The calculation is therefore 3200 × 0.88³. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 36% would be wrong, because each year's fall is taken from a smaller value than the year before.
- (d) 4.7 km — Multiply the map length by the scale factor: 9.4 × 50 000 = 470 000 cm. Convert to kilometres: 470 000 cm = 4700 m = 4.7 km. Converting only to metres and calling the answer 4700 kilometres mistakes metres for kilometres. Misreading the scale as 1 : 5000 instead of 1 : 50 000, 9.4 × 5000 = 47 000 cm = 0.47 km, is ten times too small. Misplacing the decimal point in 9.4 and effectively using 94, 94 × 50 000 = 4 700 000 cm = 47 km, is ten times too big.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.