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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 450 g — Method: use the amount of butter given to find the value of one part of the ratio, then find the mass of flour, and finally add flour and butter to get the total. Working: 180 g of butter is 2 parts, so one part is 180 ÷ 2 = 90 g. The flour is 3 parts, so 3 × 90 = 270 g, and the total mass is 270 + 180 = 450 g. So the baker can make 450 g of pastry. Distractor 270 g is only the mass of flour, forgetting to add the butter back on. Distractor 300 g comes from treating the 180 g as 3 parts instead of 2, swapping which ratio number matches the butter. Distractor 540 g comes from multiplying 180 by 3 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
- (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
- (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).
- (a) 25 — Method: for similar shapes, the area scale factor is the length scale factor squared. Working: 5² = 25. Answer: 25. 5 comes from using the length scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor, without squaring it. 10 comes from doubling the length scale factor instead of squaring it. 125 comes from cubing the length scale factor, which would give the volume scale factor, not the area scale factor.
- (d) 8/5 — Two masses can only be compared once they are in the same unit. Since 1 kg is 1000 g, the recipe needs 1200 g. The recipe's mass is being written as a fraction of Dan's mass, so 1200 goes on the top and 750 on the bottom, giving 1200/750. The highest common factor of the two is 150: 1200 ÷ 150 = 8 and 750 ÷ 150 = 5. The fraction is 8/5, which is greater than 1 because the recipe needs more flour than Dan has.
- (a) 20% — Method: a percentage is a number of parts per hundred, so divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply by 100. Working: 1 ÷ 5 = 0.2, and 0.2 × 100 = 20; the same result comes from scaling 1/5 to 20/100. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 5% comes from reading the denominator 5 straight off as the percentage; 25% comes from confusing 1/5 with 1/4, the fraction met most often in percentage work; 50% comes from a place value slip in the division, writing 1 ÷ 5 as 0.5 instead of 0.2.
- (b) 75 g — Method: split the total mass into the number of parts shown by the ratio, then find the mass of tin. Working: the ratio 7:3 has 7 + 3 = 10 parts, so one part is 250 ÷ 10 = 25 g, and the mass of tin is 3 × 25 = 75 g. So the alloy contains 75 g of tin. Distractor 175 g is the mass of copper, not tin. Distractor 125 g comes from splitting the alloy into two equal halves, ignoring the ratio. Distractor 25 g is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
- (d) Yes, because 4 × 9 = 6 × 6 — Method: two ratios are equal when their cross-products are equal, so multiply the first part of each ratio by the second part of the other. Working: 4 × 9 = 36 and 6 × 6 = 36; the two products match, so the ratios are equal, and simplifying both to 2:3 shows the same thing. Answer: yes, because 4 × 9 = 6 × 6. The distractors: the reason that the number 6 appears in both ratios reaches the right verdict from a surface match, since a figure shared by two ratios says nothing about equivalence — 4:6 and 6:5 share a 6 and are not equal; the reason built on 9 − 6 and 6 − 4 compares the differences inside each ratio, 3 against 2, which is additive thinking and ends at a verdict of no; the reason built on 4 × 6 and 6 × 9 multiplies the two parts of each ratio together instead of across the pair, giving 24 against 54 and again a verdict of no.
- (c) 200 students — Method: find the percentage who have a brother or a sister, taking care that the students with both are not counted twice, then take that percentage from 100% and apply the result to the 400 students. Working: 25% + 40% = 65%, but the 15% with both has been counted in each of those figures, so 65% − 15% = 50% have a brother or a sister; that leaves 100% − 50% = 50%, and 50% of 400 = 200. Answer: 200 students. The distractors: 260 students is 65% of 400, the number with a brother or a sister when the 15% overlap is counted twice; 140 students comes from taking that same uncorrected 65% away from the 400; 300 students comes from subtracting only the 25% with a brother and ignoring the sisters altogether.
- (b) 1 : 3 — Write the two lengths as a ratio: 5 : 15. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 5, to give 1 : 3. Writing 3 : 1 swaps the order, comparing B to A instead of A to B. Leaving the ratio as 5 : 15 has not been simplified. Finding 1 : 2 comes from comparing the smaller length to the gap between the two lengths (15 − 5 = 10, then wrongly simplifying 5 : 10), not from comparing the two lengths themselves.
- (b) £52,000 — Method: convert 130% to a decimal multiplier and multiply it by last year's profit. Working: 130% = 1.3, so this year's profit is £40,000 × 1.3 = £52,000. Answer: £52,000. £12,000 comes from using only the extra 30% (130% − 100%) and forgetting to include the original 100%, £40,000 × 0.3 = £12,000. £40,130 comes from simply adding 130 onto £40,000, treating the percentage as an amount of money rather than a multiplier. £5,200 comes from misreading 130% as 13%, giving £40,000 × 0.13 = £5,200.
- (d) 3 : 2 — Convert both amounts to pence: £3.60 = 360p and £2.40 = 240p, giving the ratio 360 : 240. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 120, to get 3 : 2. Giving 360 : 240 has not been simplified at all. Giving 2 : 3 swaps the order. Giving 36 : 24 has been divided by 10, which is a common factor but not the highest one, so it is not yet in simplest form.
- (d) 4:5 — Write the ratio pounds : dollars as 1 : 1.25. Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 1 × 4 = 4 and 1.25 × 4 = 5, giving 4 : 5. (5:4 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, dollars to pounds. 1:1 comes from rounding 1.25 dollars down to the nearest whole dollar. 1:5 comes from multiplying only the dollars by 4 to clear the decimal and leaving the pounds as 1 — both parts of a ratio must be multiplied by the same number.)
- (a) f = 4s — Method: in the ratio 4 : 1 the sugar is 1 part, so one part weighs s grams, and the flour is 4 of those same parts. Working: one part is s, so four parts are 4 × s, giving f = 4s; as a check, if s = 3 then the flour is 4 × 3 = 12 g, and 12 : 3 does simplify to 4 : 1. Answer: f = 4s. The distractors: f = s/4 uses the ratio the wrong way round, as though the flour were 1 part and the sugar 4; f = s + 3 comes from reading the ratio as a difference, 4 − 1 = 3, and adding that difference instead of multiplying; f = 5s uses 4 + 1 = 5, the total number of parts, as the multiplier, but 5 parts is the whole mixture and not the flour on its own.
- (c) 600 centilitres — Method: changing a larger unit into a smaller one means multiplying by the conversion factor given in the question. Working: 6 × 100 = 600. Answer: 600 centilitres. The distractors: 60 centilitres comes from multiplying by 10, as if a litre held 10 centilitres; 6000 centilitres comes from multiplying by 1000, which is the number of millilitres in a litre, not centilitres; 106 centilitres comes from adding 100 and 6 instead of multiplying.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.