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
- (d) 7/3 — The ratio cranberry : apple is 3:7, so apple juice is 7 parts and cranberry juice is 3 parts. Write apple over cranberry: 7/3. (3/7 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, cranberry over apple. 7/10 comes from comparing the apple juice to the total amount of the mixture, 7 parts out of 10. 3/10 comes from comparing the cranberry juice to the total amount of the mixture, 3 parts out of 10.)
- (c) 2:3 — Divide both parts by the common factor 3a: 6a ÷ 3a = 2 and 9a ÷ 3a = 3, giving the ratio 2 : 3.
- (a) 1.3 — The gradient of a distance-time graph gives the speed. Difference in speed = 4.5 − 3.2 = 1.3 km/h. A student who subtracts the speeds the wrong way round, 3.2 − 4.5, gets −1.3. A student who adds the two speeds instead of comparing them gets 7.7. A student who multiplies the two gradients gets 14.4.
- (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) 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) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
- (a) 1.375 — The multiplier is the new value divided by the original value: 176 000 ÷ 128 000 = 1.375. Choosing 0.375 comes from working out the increase as a fraction of the original (48 000 ÷ 128 000 = 0.375) and stopping there, without adding on the 1 whole that represents the original turnover. Choosing 0.727 comes from dividing the 2023 turnover by the 2024 turnover, the wrong way round (128 000 ÷ 176 000, rounded to 3 decimal places). Choosing 137.5 comes from writing the multiplier as a percentage — the 2024 turnover is 137.5% of the 2023 turnover — instead of converting it to the decimal multiplier 1.375.
- (c) 70 cm — Method: convert the real length to centimetres, then divide by the scale factor. Working: 84 m = 8400 cm. 8400 ÷ 120 = 70 cm. Wrong options: 0.7 cm comes from dividing 84 by 120 without converting metres to centimetres; 1,008,000 cm comes from multiplying instead of dividing (8400 × 120); 7 cm comes from converting 84 m to 840 cm (using ×10 instead of ×100) before dividing.
- (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) 42 — Find the value of one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Find the number of dogs: 4 × 6 = 24. Add the cats and the dogs to find the total: 18 + 24 = 42. (24 is the number of dogs only, not the total number of animals. 126 comes from multiplying the number of cats by the total number of parts, 18 × 7, instead of finding one part first. 25 comes from adding the ratio numbers 3 and 4 directly to the number of cats.)
- (d) 20 — Gradient = change in T ÷ change in t = (140 − 60) ÷ (6 − 2) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20. A student who subtracts in the wrong order gets −20. A student who divides 80 by 2 instead of 4 gets 40. A student who wrongly treats the line as passing through the origin and uses the point (2, 60) on its own gets 60 ÷ 2 = 30.
- (b) 12 cm — Method: height:width = 3:2 means both lengths are built from parts of the same size, so write 3:2 = 18:x, find one part and multiply by the number of parts in the width. Working: the height is 3 parts and measures 18 cm, so one part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 cm; the width is 2 parts, so 2 × 6 = 12 cm. Answer: 12 cm. The distractors: 27 cm comes from using the ratio the wrong way round, 18 ÷ 2 × 3, which makes the width longer than the height even though 2 is the smaller part; 6 cm is the value of one part, given as the width instead of being doubled; 17 cm comes from treating the ratio as a difference — 3 − 2 = 1, so 1 cm is taken off the height — but a ratio scales the lengths, it does not subtract from them.
- (c) 5 hours — Method: measure the job in decorator-hours, which is in the same ratio as the number of rooms, then share the decorator-hours between the decorators available. Working: 5 decorators × 6 hours = 30 decorator-hours for 3 rooms, so one room takes 30 ÷ 3 = 10 decorator-hours; 5 rooms take 5 × 10 = 50 decorator-hours; shared between 10 decorators that is 50 ÷ 10 = 5 hours. Answer: 5 hours. The distractors: 3 hours comes from halving the 6 hours because the number of decorators doubles, while forgetting that there are also more rooms to paint; 10 hours comes from scaling the 6 hours up for the rooms only, 6 × 5 ÷ 3, and leaving the workforce at 5 decorators; 6 hours comes from assuming that doubling the decorators and increasing the rooms cancel each other out, which they do not, because the rooms rise by a factor of 5/3 and the workforce by a factor of 2.
- (c) 21% — Method: an increase of 10% is a multiplier of 1.1, and two successive increases are found by multiplying the multipliers. Working: 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, so the rent is 121% of the original, which is an increase of 21%. Answer: 21%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two percentages, which ignores that the second 10% is taken of a larger amount; 121% is the multiplier written as the change rather than the change itself; 11% comes from slipping in the multiplication and getting 1.11 instead of 1.21.
- (b) 5:8 — The mix has 5 parts sand and 3 parts cement, so 5 + 3 = 8 parts in total. Sand to total is 5 : 8, and since the highest common factor of 5 and 8 is 1, this is already in its simplest form. Giving 5 : 3 answers sand to cement, not sand to the total mix. Giving 3 : 8 is cement to total, the wrong part of the mix. Giving 8 : 5 has the total and the sand swapped round.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.