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) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
- (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.
- (c) £7617.60 — To decrease by 8% each year, multiply by 0.92 (100% − 8%) twice. £9000 × 0.92 × 0.92 = £7617.60. £7560.00 comes from treating the two 8% decreases as a single flat 16% decrease applied once instead of compounding: £9000 × 0.84 = £7560.00. £8280.00 comes from applying the 8% decrease only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £9000 × 0.92 = £8280.00. £10497.60 comes from multiplying by 1.08 twice, increasing the value instead of decreasing it: £9000 × 1.08 × 1.08 = £10497.60.
- (a) The hourly rate is £5 and the fixed fee is £7 — The gradient is (27 − 12) ÷ (4 − 1) = 15 ÷ 3 = £5, the hourly rate. Using the point (1, 12): 12 = 5 × 1 + fee, so the fee is 12 − 5 = £7. That gives 'The hourly rate is £5 and the fixed fee is £7'. Swapping the two figures gives the statement with £7 as the rate and £5 as the fee, which has them the wrong way round. Taking the C-value of the first point, £12, as the fixed fee ignores that 1 hour of hire is already included in that £12. Using 15, the change in C, as the hourly rate without dividing by the change in h (3 hours) gives the statement claiming a £15 hourly rate.
- (b) No — rate fell by 3.7 thousand/month — Each tangent gradient is the instantaneous growth rate, in thousand subscribers per month. To compare them, subtract the later rate from the earlier one: 4.8 − 1.1 = 3.7. Since 1.1 is less than 4.8, the growth rate has fallen by 3.7 thousand subscribers per month, so the manager is wrong — the app is growing more slowly at 18 months, not faster. Subtracting the other way round and calling the result a rise, 'rate rose by 3.7 thousand/month', gets the direction backwards: the later gradient is the smaller of the two. Adding the two gradients, 4.8 + 1.1 = 5.9, and calling this a combined rate that shows speeding up, is the wrong operation for comparing two rates. Treating the difference 3.7 as a total number of subscribers lost, rather than a rate in thousands per month, confuses a rate with a count. Always subtract the two rates in a sensible order and keep the units in thousands per month.
- (b) −3 — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, with both changes taken in the same direction along the line. Working: going from (1, 20) to (5, 8) the change in y is 8 − 20 = −12 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4, so the gradient is −12 ÷ 4 = −3. Answer: −3, and the negative sign is expected because the line falls from left to right. The distractors: 3 comes from subtracting the smaller y from the larger, 20 − 8 = 12, while still taking the x values from left to right, which loses the minus sign that says the line falls; −12 is the change in y left undivided by the change in x of 4; −1/3 comes from dividing the change in x by the change in y, 4 ÷ (−12), turning the gradient upside down.
- (a) 15.3 litres — Squash : water = 2 : 9, so water is 9 ÷ 2 = 4.5 times the amount of squash. Multiply: 3.4 × 4.5 = 15.3 litres. Using the multiplier upside down — treating squash as 9 ÷ 2 times water, when it is water that is 9 ÷ 2 times squash — and calculating 3.4 × (2 ÷ 9) gives about 0.8 litres (to 1 d.p.); that would be the squash needed for 3.4 litres of water, not the water needed for 3.4 litres of squash. Adding the difference between the ratio parts, 9 − 2 = 7, to the squash amount, 3.4 + 7 = 10.4, mistakes a ratio for a fixed extra amount. Using the total number of parts, 2 + 9 = 11, so the multiplier 11 ÷ 2 = 5.5, gives 3.4 × 5.5 = 18.7 litres — that finds the total mix from the squash amount, not the water alone.
- (c) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
- (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
- (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.
- (b) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
- (d) Faster at t = 8s — still accelerating — The gradient of a tangent on a distance-time graph is the instantaneous speed, in m/s. At t = 2 seconds the speed is 6 m/s; at t = 8 seconds it is 9.5 m/s, which is faster, so the sprinter is still accelerating between these two times. Saying the sprinter is slower at t = 8s reverses the comparison — 9.5 is greater than 6, not less. Writing 9.5 − 6 = 3.5 and calling this 'metres further covered' turns the difference of two speeds into a distance, which the units do not support: a difference of two speeds is itself a speed, not a distance. Taking 9.5 m/s, the larger of the two instantaneous speeds, as the average speed for the whole race confuses a speed at one instant with an average over the whole distance, which would need the total distance and total time, not two tangent gradients.
- (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) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (a) 35/32 — Work out each weekly total first. Last week: 5 × 7 = 35 hours. This week: 4 × 8 = 32 hours. Last week's total is being written as a fraction of this week's total, so last week goes on the top and this week goes on the bottom, giving 35/32. The two totals share no common factor, so the fraction cannot be cancelled. It is greater than 1, which says that Priya worked more hours last week than this week.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.