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
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 30 km — First convert 1 hour 15 minutes to hours: 15 minutes is a quarter of an hour, so the time is 1.25 hours. Then multiply by the speed: 24 × 1.25 = 30 km. Reading 15 minutes as 0.15 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 24 × 1.15 = 27.6 km. Working out 24 × 75 = 1800 multiplies by the number of minutes instead of converting to hours first. Working out 24 ÷ 1.25 = 19.2 divides by the time instead of multiplying. The cyclist travels 30 km.
- (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
- (a) £7.80 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ number of hours. £58.50 ÷ 7.5 = £7.80 per hour. £438.75 comes from multiplying the pay by the hours instead of dividing (£58.50 × 7.5). £0.13 comes from dividing the hours by the pay instead of the pay by the hours (7.5 ÷ 58.50). £51.00 comes from subtracting the hours from the pay (£58.50 − 7.5) instead of dividing.
- (d) 35 — Method: in direct proportion the ratio y : x is the same for every pair, so find the constant and substitute the new value of x. Working: k = 20 ÷ 8 = 2.5, so y = 2.5x; when x = 14, y = 2.5 × 14 = 35. Answer: 35. The distractors: 26 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 6, so 6 is added to y — which would keep the difference constant rather than the ratio; 28 comes from rounding the constant 2.5 down to 2 and working out 2 × 14, which loses the half in the constant; 5.6 comes from using the constant upside down, 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4, and working out 0.4 × 14.
- (a) 4 hours — This is inverse proportion: more pumps take less time. Multiply the original numbers to find the total pump-hours needed: 2 × 10 = 20 pump-hours. Divide by the new number of pumps: 20 ÷ 5 = 4 hours. Working out 10 × 5 ÷ 2 = 25 hours treats it as direct proportion, as if more pumps needed more time. Stopping at 20 gives the total pump-hours, not the number of hours. Working out 10 − (5 − 2) = 7 hours subtracts the extra number of pumps straight from the number of hours, treating pumps and hours as the same kind of quantity. 5 pumps take 4 hours.
- (a) 18/25 — First find the new number of rose bushes: 90 × 1.2 = 108 (a 20% increase multiplies by 1.2). Then write 108 over 150 and divide top and bottom by 6 to get 18/25. Choosing 3/5 comes from using the original 90 rose bushes without applying the 20% increase (90/150 = 3/5). Choosing 25/18 comes from writing the number of lavender bushes over the new number of rose bushes, the wrong way round. Choosing 3/25 comes from multiplying 90 by 0.2 instead of 1.2, finding only the increase (18) rather than the new total, then writing 18/150 = 3/25.
- (b) 25 m/s — Convert km/h to m/s by multiplying by 1000 (km to m) and dividing by 3600 (hours to seconds): 90 × 1000 ÷ 3600 = 25 m/s. Working out 90 ÷ 60 = 1.5 converts using 60, as if going from hours to minutes rather than to seconds. Working out 90 × 3.6 = 324 multiplies by 3.6 instead of dividing by it, going the wrong way between the units. Working out 90 × 1000 = 90000 converts kilometres to metres but forgets to convert hours to seconds at all. The train's speed is 25 m/s.
- (c) 88 km/h — Multiply the speed in mph by the conversion factor: 55 × 1.6 = 88 km/h. Dividing by 1.6 instead of multiplying gives 55 ÷ 1.6 ≈ 34.38 km/h, going the wrong way between the units. Adding the conversion factor instead of multiplying gives 55 + 1.6 = 56.6 km/h, treating the factor as an amount rather than a multiplier. Multiplying by 0.6 instead of 1.6 gives 55 × 0.6 = 33 km/h, using only part of the conversion factor. 55 mph is equal to 88 km/h.
- (d) 3:8 — Convert 2 hours to minutes: 2 hours = 120 minutes. The ratio is 45 : 120. The highest common factor of 45 and 120 is 15. Divide both parts by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3 and 120 ÷ 15 = 8, giving 3 : 8. Leaving the hours unconverted gives 45 : 2 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 5 instead of 15 gives 9 : 24, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 3, hours to minutes instead of minutes to hours.
- (a) 4 weeks — Apply the recurrence week by week. C_1 = 0.75 × 500 + 40 = 375 + 40 = 415. C_2 = 0.75 × 415 + 40 = 311.25 + 40 = 351.25. C_3 = 0.75 × 351.25 + 40 = 263.4375 + 40 = 303.4375. C_4 = 0.75 × 303.4375 + 40 = 227.578125 + 40 = 267.578125. C_3 = 303.4375 is still above 300, but C_4 = 267.58 has dropped below it, so the lake first becomes safe after 4 weeks. Taking 25% of the ORIGINAL 500 every week instead of 25% of the current amount, a flat 125 each time, gives 500 − 125 + 40 = 415, then 415 − 125 + 40 = 330, then 330 − 125 + 40 = 245, which crosses 300 a week too early and gives the wrong answer of 3 weeks. Continuing one extra step to C_5 = 0.75 × 267.578125 + 40 = 200.68 + 40 = 240.68 and calling it 5 weeks overshoots, since the concentration had already dropped below 300 at C_4. Forgetting the 40 units of run-off each week and only applying the decay gives C_1 = 0.75 × 500 = 375, then C_2 = 0.75 × 375 = 281.25 — this is already below 300 after only 2 weeks, because without the run-off the concentration falls much faster.
- (b) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
- (c) 183 mg — Apply the decay, then add the new dose, once for each hour. Hour 1: 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 140 + 50 = 190. Hour 2: 0.7 × 190 = 133, then 133 + 50 = 183, so there is 183 mg after 2 hours. Forgetting the top-up dose and only applying the decay gives 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 0.7 × 140 = 98 — this ignores that a further 50 mg is given every hour. Adding the 50 mg BEFORE the decay is applied, instead of after, gives 0.7 × (200 + 50) = 175, then 0.7 × (175 + 50) = 157.5, which changes how much of the dose is eliminated in the same hour it is given. Multiplying by 0.3, the percentage ELIMINATED, instead of by 0.7, the percentage REMAINING, gives 0.3 × 200 + 50 = 110, then 0.3 × 110 + 50 = 83 — this mixes up the amount that leaves the bloodstream with the amount that stays in it. Always check whether a percentage describes what remains or what is removed before choosing the multiplier.
- (d) 10 — First find the height at each end of the chord. At t = 1, h = 30 × 1 − 5 × 1² = 30 − 5 = 25. At t = 3, h = 30 × 3 − 5 × 3² = 90 − 45 = 45. The gradient of the chord estimates the instantaneous rate at the midpoint t = 2: 45 − 25 = 20, then 20 ÷ (3 − 1) = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 m/s. Finding the change in height but forgetting to divide by the change in time gives 20, which is a distance, not a rate. Averaging the two heights instead of finding the difference gives (25 + 45) ÷ 2 = 70 ÷ 2 = 35. Subtracting in the wrong order, 25 − 45 = −20, then −20 ÷ 2 = −10, gives the correct size with the sign flipped — the rocket is rising, not falling, at t = 2 seconds, so a negative rate cannot be right here.
- (c) 1.2 cm/s — To estimate an instantaneous rate of change at a point from a table of readings, use the chord that spans the point symmetrically — equal steps either side — because the over-estimate on one side and the under-estimate on the other largely cancel. Here that is the chord from t = 10 to t = 30. The change in depth is 56 − 32 = 24 and the change in time is 30 − 10 = 20, so the estimate is 24 ÷ 20 = 1.2 cm/s. The one-sided chord from t = 20 to t = 30 gives (56 − 45) ÷ (30 − 20) = 11 ÷ 10 = 1.1 cm/s, which estimates the rate somewhere between t = 20 and t = 30 rather than at t = 20 itself. Dividing the 20-second change in depth by the 10-second gap between consecutive readings gives 24 ÷ 10 = 2.4, mixing the change from one interval with the time from another. Reporting the change in depth, 24, on its own is not a rate at all, because it has not been divided by a time. The best estimate of the instantaneous rate of change of depth at t = 20 is 1.2 cm/s.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.