Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the ratio, proportion and rates of change statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.A scale drawing of a park has a scale of 1 : 2500. On the drawing, the distance between the entrance and the lake is 4.4 cm. A jogger runs from the entrance to the lake and then back to the entrance. Work out the total distance the jogger runs, in kilometres.
- 2.In a choir of 30 singers, 40% are altos and the rest are sopranos. Write the number of sopranos as a fraction of the number of altos. Give your answer in its simplest form.
- 3.There are 2500 electric cars registered in a town. The number is predicted to increase by 6% each year. Work out the predicted number of electric cars after 3 years, to the nearest whole number.
- 4.A cyclist's speed, in metres per second, is plotted against time, in seconds, since she sets off. Which statement correctly pairs the gradient of a tangent to this graph, and the area between the graph and the time-axis, with what each one represents?
- 5.Paint costs £14.40 for every 20 m² of wall it covers. Assuming the same rate, work out the cost of the paint needed to cover 56 m² of wall.
- 6.6 identical taps fill a paddling pool in 20 minutes. Each tap fills at the same steady rate. Work out how long 3 of these taps would take to fill the same pool.
- 7.A shop sells rope by the metre. 3 m costs £7.50 and 5 m costs £11.00. Does this data show that the cost is directly proportional to the length of rope bought? Choose the correct verdict and reason.
- 8.A conversion graph between kilometres and miles passes through the origin and the point (50, 31), with the number of kilometres on the horizontal axis and the number of miles on the vertical axis. Work out the number of miles equivalent to 1 kilometre.
- 9.A tangent to the graph of population against time at the point where t = 4 passes through (2, 180) and (6, 260). Work out the instantaneous rate of change of the population at t = 4, in people per year.
- 10.Map A has a scale of 1 : 25000 and Map B has a scale of 1 : 50000, both showing the same area. A real distance of 10 km is measured on each map. On which map does this distance appear as the longer length, and how long is it on that map, in centimetres?
- 11.A car is bought for £17,500. Its value decreases by 12% in the first year, and by a further 10% of its reduced value in the second year. Work out the value of the car at the end of the second year, giving your answer to the nearest pound.
- 12.y is directly proportional to √x. When x = 25, y = 20. Construct the equation connecting x and y, then work out the value of x when y = 32.
- 13.A fixed job of fitting a solar array is shared between installers, and the time taken is inversely proportional to the number of installers working on it at once. With 4 installers the job takes 18 hours. Construct the equation connecting time T and number of installers n, then work out how long it would take with 6 installers.
- 14.A spring's extension is directly proportional to the force applied to it. A force of 5 N produces an extension of 12 mm. Work out the extension produced by a force of 20 N.
- 15.A furniture maker builds two mathematically similar bookcases. The smaller bookcase is 40 cm tall and uses 2 m² of wood. The larger bookcase is 60 cm tall. Work out the area of wood needed for the larger bookcase, giving your answer in m².
Answer key
- (b) 0.22 km — The real one-way distance is 4.4 × 2500 = 11000 cm. Converting units: 11000 ÷ 100 = 110 m, and 110 ÷ 1000 = 0.11 km. Since the jogger runs there and back, the total distance is 0.11 × 2 = 0.22 km. 0.11 km comes from working out only the one-way distance and forgetting the return journey. 220 km comes from correctly doubling the one-way distance in metres, 110 × 2 = 220, but leaving it mislabelled as kilometres instead of converting metres to kilometres. 110 km comes from working out only the one-way distance in metres, 110, and mislabelling it as kilometres.
- (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) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
- (d) Gradient = acceleration; area = distance travelled. — Method: on a speed–time graph, the gradient of the graph at an instant is the rate of change of speed with time, which is acceleration; the area between the graph and the time-axis over an interval is the total distance covered in that interval, because it accumulates speed × time. Working: gradient = acceleration and area = distance travelled is the correct pairing. Swapping the two quantities completely, gradient = distance travelled and area = acceleration, is the reverse of what each actually measures. Keeping gradient = acceleration correct but then also claiming area = acceleration too is wrong because the area is a different physical quantity, distance, not a second way of finding the same rate. Claiming the gradient itself gives the speed confuses the RATE OF CHANGE of the plotted quantity with the plotted quantity itself — the gradient is how fast the speed is changing, not the speed. On any rate graph, the gradient of the graph is always the RATE at that instant, and the area under the graph is always the TOTAL AMOUNT accumulated — keep straight which of the two questions each one answers.
- (a) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: this is inverse proportion — fewer taps means longer, not shorter — so the number of taps × the time taken stays constant. Working: 6 × 20 = 120, and with 3 taps the time is 120 ÷ 3 = 40 minutes. So 3 taps take 40 minutes. Distractor 10 minutes comes from treating it as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 20 × 3 ÷ 6. Distractor 30 minutes comes from halving the number of taps and adding half the original time, 20 + 10, instead of doubling the time. Distractor 17 minutes comes from subtracting the number of taps removed, 3, directly from the original time, 20.
- (a) No — the cost per metre differs: £2.50/m vs £2.20/m — Method: divide cost by length for each pair and compare the unit rates. Working: £7.50 ÷ 3 = £2.50 per m; £11.00 ÷ 5 = £2.20 per m. The rates are different, so this is NOT direct proportion. Wrong options: 'Yes — both amounts increase' wrongly assumes any increasing relationship is proportional; 'No — because 5 m costs more in total' judges by total cost rather than the rate per metre, which is not valid reasoning on its own; 'Yes — the cost per metre is £2.50 in both cases' miscalculates the second rate (11.00 ÷ 5 is £2.20, not £2.50).
- (a) 0.62 miles — The gradient of the line is the change in miles divided by the change in kilometres: 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62, so 1 kilometre converts to 0.62 miles. Dividing the wrong way round, 50 ÷ 31 = 1.612..., rounds to 1.61 miles — that finds how many kilometres are in 1 mile, not the reverse. Doubling the gradient, 1.24 miles, comes from using 62 ÷ 50 instead of 31 ÷ 50. Reading off the y-coordinate of the given point without dividing by the x-coordinate gives 31.00 miles, which is the number of miles for 50 kilometres, not for 1 kilometre.
- (a) 20 people/year — The gradient of a tangent to a graph at a point equals the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity there. A straight line's gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (2, 180) and (6, 260), so the change in population is 260 − 180 = 80 and the change in time is 6 − 2 = 4. The gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20. Reporting the change in population, 80, on its own is not a rate, because that growth happened over 4 years and has not been divided by them. Adding the two changes instead of dividing gives 80 + 4 = 84, which is not a rate. Subtracting the coordinates in the wrong order, (180 − 260) ÷ (6 − 2), gives −80 ÷ 4 = −20, the wrong sign. The instantaneous rate of change of the population at t = 4 is 20 people per year.
- (c) Map A, where the distance is 40 cm — 10 km = 1,000,000 cm. On Map A: 1000000 ÷ 25000 = 40 cm. On Map B: 1000000 ÷ 50000 = 20 cm. Since 40 cm is longer than 20 cm, the same real distance appears longer on Map A, the map with the smaller scale number. 'Map B, where the distance is 20 cm' has the correct working for Map B but names the wrong map as the one with the longer length. 'Map A, where the distance is 20 cm' correctly identifies Map A but pairs it with Map B's length. 'Map B, where the distance is 40 cm' correctly identifies Map A's length but attaches it to the wrong map.
- (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) 64 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 25, y = 20: √25 = 5, so 20 = k × 5, giving k = 20 ÷ 5 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When y = 32: √x = 32 ÷ 4 = 8, and x = 8² = 64. Stopping at √x = 8 without squaring leaves the square root of x, not x itself. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself gives k = 20 ÷ 25 = 0.8 and then x = 32 ÷ 0.8 = 40, which is a different relationship entirely. Multiplying instead of dividing when isolating √x gives √x = 32 × 4 = 128, far too large to be a square root here. When y = 32, x = 64.
- (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
- (c) 48 mm — Method: extension = k × force, where k = extension ÷ force. Working: k = 12 ÷ 5 = 2.4 mm per N. At 20 N: extension = 2.4 × 20 = 48 mm. Wrong options: 32 mm comes from adding the extension and force numbers instead of scaling (12 + 20); 3 mm comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (12 × 5 ÷ 20); 36 mm comes from using an incorrect scale factor of 3 between the forces instead of the correct factor of 4 (20 ÷ 5).
- (b) 4.5 m² — The height ratio is 40 : 60, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger bookcase is 1.5 times as tall as the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor, so the wood needed scales by 1.5² = 2.25. 2 × 2.25 = 4.5, so the larger bookcase needs 4.5 m² of wood. Giving 3 m² uses the length scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (2 × 1.5 = 3). Giving 6.75 m² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if wood coverage were a volume (2 × 3.375 = 6.75). Giving 2.25 m² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller bookcase's wood area of 2 m².
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.