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.
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 36 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the number of parts in the share asked for. Working: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, 72 ÷ 6 = 12 for one part, and the largest number is 3 parts, so 3 × 12 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 is the value of one part, which is the smallest of the three numbers rather than the largest; 24 is 2 parts, the middle number; 216 comes from multiplying 72 by 3 instead of dividing 72 by the 6 parts first.
- (b) 3 km — Method: multiply by the scale factor to get the real length in centimetres, then convert to kilometres. Working: 7.5 × 40 000 = 300 000 cm. 300 000 ÷ 100 000 = 3 km. Wrong options: 30 km comes from dividing by 10 000 instead of 100 000 when converting to kilometres; 3000 km comes from dividing by 100 instead of 100 000; 0.3 km comes from dividing by 1 000 000, an extra factor of 10 too many.
- (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) 15 — Method: the number of cakes is in direct proportion to the mass of flour, so find the multiplier between the two masses and apply it to the number of cakes. Working: 6 ÷ 2 = 3, so there is three times as much flour, and 5 × 3 = 15. Answer: 15. The distractors: 10 comes from multiplying the 5 cakes by 2, the mass in the recipe, instead of by the multiplier 3; 20 comes from multiplying by the difference 6 − 2 = 4, treating a proportion problem as a difference problem; 12 comes from rounding 5 ÷ 2 down to 2 cakes per kilogram and working out 6 × 2.
- (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.
- (d) £200 — Method: add the parts of the ratio, divide the total paid by the number of parts to find the value of one part, then multiply by the parts in the most expensive item. Working: 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 parts, £400 ÷ 10 = £40 for one part, and the most expensive item is 5 parts, so 5 × £40 = £200. Answer: £200. The distractors: £40 is the value of one part; £80 is the 2-part item, the cheapest of the three; £120 is the 3-part item.
- (a) 8 cm — Method: a scale of 1 : n means the real distance is n times the distance on the map, so to go from the real distance back to the map distance, put both lengths in the same unit and then divide by the scale. Working: 1 km = 100 000 cm, so 8 km = 8 × 100 000 = 800 000 cm; 800 000 ÷ 100 000 = 8. Answer: 8 cm. The distractors: 800000 cm comes from converting the 8 km into centimetres and stopping there, so the division by the scale — the inverse operation the question asks for — is never done; 80 cm comes from taking a metre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8 × 1000 × 1000 = 8 000 000 cm and gives 8 000 000 ÷ 100 000 = 80; 0.08 cm comes from taking a kilometre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8000 cm and gives 8000 ÷ 100 000 = 0.08.
- (d) 3/8 — The ratio 3 : 5 has 3 + 5 = 8 parts in total. The first part as a fraction of the whole is 3 out of 8, or 3/8. Writing 3/5 gives the first part compared to the second part, not to the whole. Writing 5/8 gives the second part as a fraction of the whole, not the first. Writing 8/3 has the fraction upside down — the whole must be on the bottom.
- (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.
- (a) Yes — dividing both parts of 6 : 15 by 3 gives 2 : 5 — Method: divide both parts of the ratio by their highest common factor and compare. Working: the highest common factor of 6 and 15 is 3. 6 ÷ 3 = 2 and 15 ÷ 3 = 5, giving 2 : 5, so Ollie is correct. Wrong options: '6 : 15 simplifies to 3 : 5' divides incorrectly, giving the wrong simplified ratio; 'cannot simplify a ratio that does not start with an even number' states a false rule — any ratio can be simplified if its parts share a common factor; '15 ÷ 6 is not a whole number, so it cannot be simplified' wrongly tries to divide one part by the other instead of finding a common factor.
- (c) 36 — Add the parts of the ratio: 3 + 4 = 7. Divide the total by the number of parts: 84 ÷ 7 = 12, so one part is worth 12. The smaller share has 3 parts: 3 × 12 = 36. (48 is the larger share, using 4 parts instead of 3. 42 comes from splitting 84 in half, treating the ratio as if it were 1:1. 28 comes from dividing 84 by 3 — one of the ratio numbers — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7.)
- (c) 4 : 5 — Method: a formula of the form y = kx says that for every 1 of x there are k of y, so the ratio y : x is k : 1, which is then written with whole numbers and cancelled. Working: here k = 0.8, so y : x = 0.8 : 1; multiplying both parts by 10 gives 8 : 10, and dividing both parts by their highest common factor 2 gives 4 : 5. Answer: 4 : 5. The distractors: 5 : 4 comes from writing x : y, reversing the order asked for; 8 : 10 has the decimal cleared but the ratio left unsimplified, and the question asks for the simplest form; 8 : 1 comes from multiplying only the left-hand part by 10 and leaving the 1 unchanged, which changes the relationship instead of keeping it.
- (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.
- (c) 90 cm² — The perimeter ratio is 30 : 45, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger frame is 1.5 times the perimeter of the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of this length scale factor: 1.5² = 2.25. 40 × 2.25 = 90, so the larger frame has an area of 90 cm². Giving 60 cm² uses the scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (40 × 1.5 = 60). Giving 135 cm² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if area scaled like a volume (40 × 3.375 = 135). Giving 2.25 cm² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller frame's area of 40 cm².
- (b) They are in inverse proportion, because x × y = 60 for both pairs. — Testing inverse proportion means checking that x × y is the same for every pair: 4 × 15 = 60 and 6 × 10 = 60, so the quantities are in inverse proportion. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because y ÷ x differs uses the test for direct proportion, and finding that it differs tells us nothing about inverse proportion. Saying x × y = 40 for both pairs is an arithmetic slip: 4 × 15 = 60, not 40.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.