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) 12 — Speed × time is constant: k = 20 × 15 = 300. At 25 pages per minute, the time is 300 ÷ 25 = 12 minutes. Getting 18.75 comes from treating speed and time as directly proportional and working out 15 × 25 ÷ 20 instead of dividing k by the new speed. Getting 20 comes from adding the increase in speed (25 − 20 = 5) onto the time (15 + 5 = 20). Getting 10 comes from subtracting that same increase in speed from the time (15 − 5 = 10).
- (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.
- (c) 7800 kg/m³ — Method: build the conversion factor from the two unit changes separately — one for the mass, one for the volume. Working: 1 kg = 1000 g, so the mass figure is divided by 1000; 1 m = 100 cm, so 1 m³ = 100 × 100 × 100 = 1000000 cm³ and the volume figure is multiplied by 1000000. The density figure is therefore multiplied by 1000000 ÷ 1000 = 1000, giving 7.8 × 1000 = 7800. So the density of the metal is 7800 kg/m³. Distractor 780 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 100 instead of 1000. Distractor 78000 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 10000, an extra zero. Distractor 7.8 kg/m³ comes from not converting the units at all.
- (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
- (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.)
- (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).
- (a) 40 m² — A scale of 1 : 10 is a length scale factor of 10 from model to real. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor: 10² = 100. 0.4 × 100 = 40, so the real staircase covers 40 m². Giving 4 m² uses the length scale factor, 10, without squaring it (0.4 × 10 = 4). Giving 0.04 m² divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying by its square (0.4 ÷ 10 = 0.04). Giving 400 m² cubes the scale factor, 10³ = 1000, as if area scaled like a volume (0.4 × 1000 = 400).
- (d) 2748 — A 7% increase each year means the value becomes 100% + 7% = 107% of the previous year's value, and 107% = 1.07, so the multiplier is 1.07. Multiply by 1.07 for each of the 2 years: 2400 × 1.07 × 1.07 = 2747.76, which rounds to 2748. (2736 comes from using simple growth instead of compound: 2400 + 2 × (2400 × 0.07) = 2736. 2568 is the population after only 1 year, 2400 × 1.07, forgetting the second year's growth. 2747 comes from rounding 2747.76 down instead of up to the nearest whole number.)
- (c) 25 — Method: divide the larger number by its ratio part to find the value of one part, then multiply by the smaller number's ratio part. Working: 40 ÷ 8 = 5 (value of one part). Smaller number = 5 × 5 = 25. Wrong options: 64 comes from dividing by the smaller ratio part instead of the larger (40 ÷ 5 × 8); 45 comes from adding the value of one part onto 40 instead of scaling down (40 + 5); 35 comes from subtracting the value of one part from 40 (40 − 5) instead of multiplying it by the smaller ratio part.
- (a) 18/25 — First find the new number of rose bushes: 90 × 1.2 = 108 (a 20% increase multiplies by 1.2). Then write 108 over 150 and divide top and bottom by 6 to get 18/25. Choosing 3/5 comes from using the original 90 rose bushes without applying the 20% increase (90/150 = 3/5). Choosing 25/18 comes from writing the number of lavender bushes over the new number of rose bushes, the wrong way round. Choosing 3/25 comes from multiplying 90 by 0.2 instead of 1.2, finding only the increase (18) rather than the new total, then writing 18/150 = 3/25.
- (c) £2743.60 — Each year the balance is multiplied by 1.03. After the first year: 4000 × 1.03 = 4120. After the second year: 4120 × 1.03 = 4243.60, so that is what Leah takes out. She then spends £1500 of it, which leaves 4243.60 − 1500 = 2743.60. She has £2743.60 left.
- (b) 15 — Find the multiplier connecting y to x: 10 ÷ 4 = 2.5. Then apply it to the new value of x: 2.5 × 6 = 15. Working out 10 + (6 − 4) = 12 adds the change in x straight onto y instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 10 × 6 = 60 multiplies the given y-value by the new x-value directly, without finding the multiplier first. Writing 10 keeps y the same as before, not realising it must change with x. When x = 6, y = 15.
- (a) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.