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
- (b) €230.00 — Multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate: 200 × 1.15 = 230, so £200 = €230.00. Working out 200 + 1.15 = 201.15 treats the exchange rate as an amount to add rather than a multiplier. Working out 200 × 0.15 = 30 finds only the extra amount earned for every pound and forgets to add it back to the original £200. Working out 200 × 11.5 = 2300.00 misplaces the decimal point in the exchange rate, multiplying by 11.5 instead of 1.15. £200 converts to €230.00.
- (c) 12 m — Method: the perimeter of a rectangle is twice the sum of the length and the width, so half the perimeter is one length plus one width; split that half using the ratio. Working: half of 64 is 64 ÷ 2 = 32 m, the ratio 5:3 has 5 + 3 = 8 parts, so one part is 32 ÷ 8 = 4 m, and the width is 3 × 4 = 12 m. So the width is 12 m. Distractor 20 m is the length, 5 parts, not the width. Distractor 24 m comes from splitting the whole perimeter, 64 m, into 8 parts and multiplying by 3, forgetting to halve the perimeter first. Distractor 8 m comes from the same slip stopped one step earlier: splitting the whole perimeter into 8 parts, 64 ÷ 8 = 8, and giving that instead of the width.
- (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.
- (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.)
- (d) 3 : 2 : 5 — The highest common factor of 45, 30 and 75 is 15. Divide each part by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 75 ÷ 15 = 5, giving 3 : 2 : 5. Giving 9 : 6 : 15 divides by 5, a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 15 : 10 : 25 divides by 3 only, even further from simplest form. Giving 2 : 3 : 5 has the first two parts swapped.
- (a) £14224 — Value after 2 years: £15000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £16224. Money left after buying the trailer: £16224 − £2000 = £14224. £14200 comes from treating the two 4% increases as a single flat 8% increase applied once instead of compounding: £15000 × 1.08 = £16200, and £16200 − £2000 = £14200. £13600 comes from applying the 4% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £15000 × 1.04 = £15600, and £15600 − £2000 = £13600. £18224 comes from adding the £2000 instead of subtracting it: £16224 + £2000 = £18224.
- (d) 3/2 — Work out the number of altos: 40% of 30 = 12. The rest are sopranos, so there are 30 − 12 = 18 sopranos. Form the fraction 18/12; both numbers share a factor of 6, so 18 ÷ 6 = 3 and 12 ÷ 6 = 2, giving 3/2. 2/3 comes from writing the fraction the wrong way round, as altos over sopranos (12/18). 3/5 comes from comparing the sopranos with the whole choir (18/30), instead of with the altos. 7/3 comes from miscalculating 30 − 12 as 28 instead of 18, then forming 28/12.
- (a) 3/2 — Put Sam's amount over Tom's amount: 24/16. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 8: 24÷8 = 3, 16÷8 = 2, giving 3/2. (2/3 comes from writing Tom's amount over Sam's amount, the wrong way round. 3/5 comes from comparing Sam's amount to the total amount of money, 24/40, instead of to Tom's amount. 1/2 comes from finding the difference between the amounts, £8, and writing it as a fraction of Tom's amount, 8/16.)
- (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) 1 : 16 — Work out each area before comparing. Square P has area 3 × 3 = 9 cm². Square Q has area 12 × 12 = 144 cm². The ratio of the areas is 9 : 144, and both parts divide by 9: 9 ÷ 9 = 1 and 144 ÷ 9 = 16, giving 1 : 16. Notice that the sides are in the ratio 1 : 4, and the areas are in the ratio of the squares of those parts, which is what always happens when a length is scaled. Stopping at 1 : 4 would compare the sides and never the areas, and cubing the parts to reach 1 : 64 is the rule for volumes rather than for areas. The order matters too: the question names square P first, so its area must be the first part of the ratio.
- (d) 36 mph — First convert 1 hour 30 minutes to hours: 30 minutes is half an hour, so the time is 1.5 hours. Then divide the distance by the time: 54 ÷ 1.5 = 36 mph. Reading 1 hour 30 minutes as 1.3 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 54 ÷ 1.3 ≈ 41.54 mph. Working out 54 ÷ 30 = 1.8 divides by the number of minutes only, ignoring the hour. Working out 54 × 1.5 = 81 multiplies by the time instead of dividing. The coach's average speed is 36 mph.
- (d) 8 cm — Convert 4 m to centimetres: 4 m = 400 cm. The scale 1 : 50 means the real object is 50 times the plan, so the plan length is the real length divided by 50: 400 ÷ 50 = 8, giving 8 cm. Using the length in metres instead of centimetres, 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08, gives 0.08 cm, far too small to draw. Misplacing a digit in the division gives 80 cm, ten times too big. Multiplying instead of dividing, 400 × 50 = 20 000, gives 20 000 cm — using the scale in the wrong direction, as if going from plan to real life instead of real life to plan.
- (c) 1 : 27 — The edge lengths are in the ratio 2 : 6, which simplifies to 1 : 3. Volumes scale with the cube of the length ratio, so the volume ratio is 1³ : 3³ = 1 : 27. Giving 1 : 3 uses the length ratio without cubing it. Giving 1 : 9 squares the length ratio, which is the rule for areas, instead of cubing it, which is the rule for volumes. Giving 27 : 1 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger as the question asks.
- (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.