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) A straight line through the origin, rising from left to right — Two quantities are in direct proportion when one is a constant multiple of the other, so their graph is a straight line through the origin: when one quantity is 0 the other is 0 as well, and doubling one doubles the other. A straight line crossing the vertical axis at 5 has a fixed amount added on, so when the horizontal quantity is 0 the vertical quantity is 5, not 0 — a straight line on its own is not enough for direct proportion. A curve that falls steeply and then levels off without touching either axis shows inverse proportion: one quantity grows as the other shrinks, and their product stays the same. A horizontal line at a height of 3 shows a quantity that does not change at all as the other one grows, so it is not proportional to it.
- (a) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, which on this graph is a number of litres for each mile, and a negative gradient means the vertical quantity is going down. Working: from (0, 45) to (150, 15) the fuel changes by 15 − 45 = −30 litres while the distance changes by 150 − 0 = 150 miles, so the gradient is −30 ÷ 150 = −0.2, which says the tank loses 0.2 litres for every mile driven. Answer: −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile. The distractors: '0.2, the car gains 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from subtracting the fuel values the other way round, 45 − 15 = 30, which drops the minus sign and reverses what the graph says; '−5, the car uses 5 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from dividing the change in distance by the change in fuel, 150 ÷ (−30), turning the gradient upside down; '−30, the car uses 30 litres of fuel for each mile' is the change in fuel on its own, never divided by the 150 miles travelled.
- (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.
- (c) £32 — First find the gradient: (26 − 14) ÷ (50 − 20) = 12 ÷ 30 = £0.40 per minute. Using the point (20, 14), the charge for 65 minutes is 14 + 0.40 × (65 − 20) = 14 + 18 = £32. Choosing £26 comes from treating the charge as directly proportional to the time, multiplying the gradient by 65 minutes and ignoring the fixed part of the charge (0.40 × 65 = 26). Choosing £40 comes from treating £14 as if it were the charge at 0 minutes, then adding the gradient multiplied by the full 65 minutes (14 + 0.40 × 65 = 40), instead of multiplying by the extra time past 20 minutes. Choosing £33.80 comes from assuming the charge is directly proportional to the minutes already known, scaling up from the point (50, 26) in the ratio 65:50 (65 ÷ 50 × 26 = 33.80).
- (c) 250 miles — Find the distance travelled in 1 hour: 150 ÷ 3 = 50 miles. Multiply by 5 hours: 50 × 5 = 250 miles. Giving 300 miles doubles the original distance (150 × 2 = 300) using a scale factor of 2 instead of the correct 5 ÷ 3. Giving 200 miles adds only one extra hour's distance, 50, instead of the two extra hours actually needed (150 + 50 = 200, rather than 150 + 100). Giving 90 miles divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (150 × 3 ÷ 5 = 90).
- (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) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (b) 1:12 — C = 12n means that for every 1 pen there are 12 pence of cost, so n : C = 1 : 12, and the highest common factor of 1 and 12 is 1, so this is already in its simplest form. Writing C : n instead of n : C gives 12 : 1, the ratio the wrong way round. Reading C = 12n as '12 more than n' instead of '12 times n', so n = 1 gives C = 13, gives 1 : 13, from adding instead of multiplying. Choosing n = 12, so C = 12 × 12 = 144, gives the correct pair of values n : C = 12 : 144, but the ratio the right way round left unsimplified — 12 and 144 share a common factor of 12, which has not been cancelled.
- (b) 120 minutes — Method: find the rate in bottles per minute, then divide the order size by the rate. Working: rate = 810 ÷ 45 = 18 bottles per minute. Time = 2,160 ÷ 18 = 120 minutes. Wrong options: 1,350 minutes comes from subtracting 810 from 2,160 instead of using the rate; 48 minutes comes from dividing the order size by the original time (2,160 ÷ 45) instead of the rate; 108 minutes comes from rounding the rate to 20 bottles per minute before dividing.
- (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.)
- (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.
- (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.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.