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) 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) £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.)
- (a) £150 — Value after year 1: £800 × 0.75 = £600. Value after year 2: £600 × 0.75 = £450. The loss during the second year alone is £600 − £450 = £150. £450 comes from giving the value remaining after 2 years, not the amount lost during the second year. £200 comes from working out the loss during the first year instead of the second: £800 − £600 = £200. £350 comes from working out the total loss over both years instead of just the second year's loss: £800 − £450 = £350.
- (c) C = 1.5n — Method: a fixed ratio between C and n means C is always the same multiple of n, and that multiple is the cost of one bottle. Working: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.5, 7.50 ÷ 5 = 1.5 and 12.00 ÷ 8 = 1.5, so every bottle costs £1.50 and C = 1.5n. Answer: C = 1.5n. The distractors: C = n + 1 comes from subtracting on the first row, 3 − 2 = 1, and adding that difference instead of multiplying; it fits the first row and fails the other two, which is why three rows are given; C = 3n reads the £3.00 as the price of one bottle when it is the price of two; C = n/1.5 divides the number of bottles by the price of one bottle, which works out how many bottles a pound buys instead of what n bottles cost.
- (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.
- (d) 1 : 2500 — Method: convert the real-world measurement to the same unit as the drawing (centimetres) before writing the ratio. Working: 25 m = 2500 cm, so the scale is 1 : 2500. Wrong options: 1 : 25 comes from not converting metres to centimetres at all; 1 : 250 comes from converting metres to centimetres using ×10 instead of ×100; 1 : 2.5 comes from converting in the wrong direction (treating 25 m as 2.5 cm).
- (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.
- (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
- (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
- (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.
- (b) 4 : 25 — For similar shapes, the ratio of areas is the ratio of lengths squared: 2² : 5² = 4 : 25. 2 : 5 comes from using the perimeter ratio itself as the area ratio, without squaring it at all. 8 : 125 comes from cubing each part instead of squaring (2³ : 5³) — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 4 : 5 comes from squaring only the first part of the ratio (2² = 4), and leaving the second part unsquared.
- (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.
- (a) 5/12 — Work out the distance still to travel: 372 − 217 = 155 miles. Form the fraction 155/372; both numbers share a factor of 31, so 155 ÷ 31 = 5 and 372 ÷ 31 = 12, giving 5/12. 7/12 comes from writing the distance already travelled as the fraction of the journey (217/372 = 7/12), instead of the distance still to travel. 145/372 comes from miscalculating 372 − 217 as 145 instead of 155. 5/7 comes from comparing the remaining distance with the distance already travelled (155/217 = 5/7), instead of with the total journey.
- (d) 90 cm — Method: scale each dimension by the scale factor, then find the perimeter. Working: model height = 240 ÷ 8 = 30 cm; model width = 120 ÷ 8 = 15 cm. Perimeter = 2 × (30 + 15) = 90 cm. Wrong options: 11.25 cm comes from squaring the scale factor as if finding an area (720 ÷ 64); 510 cm comes from scaling only one dimension and leaving the other at full size; 720 cm comes from finding the real perimeter (2 × (240 + 120)) but forgetting to scale it down at all.
- (d) 3.75 — 45 minutes is 45 ÷ 60 = 0.75 of an hour, so 3 hours 45 minutes = 3.75 hours. Getting 3.45 comes from writing the minutes directly after the decimal point instead of converting them to a fraction of an hour. Getting 3.67 comes from misreading 45 minutes as 40 minutes and converting 40 ÷ 60 instead. Getting 4.15 comes from rounding 45 minutes up to the next whole hour and adding the remainder as if it were more minutes past that hour.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.