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) 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.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (d) A falling curve that never touches either axis — Method: inverse proportion means the product of the two quantities is constant, so P = k ÷ Q; as Q grows P shrinks, and P can never reach zero because k divided by a number is never zero. Working: taking k = 12 as an example, the pairs (1, 12), (2, 6), (3, 4), (6, 2) and (12, 1) drop steeply at first and then flatten out, so the graph is a curve that approaches both axes without meeting either of them. Answer: a falling curve that never touches either axis. The distractors: 'a straight line through the origin' is the graph of direct proportion, P = kQ, which is the opposite relationship; 'a straight line with a negative gradient' is the commonest error, reading 'P falls as Q rises' as a straight line, but on such a line P would drop by the same amount for every increase in Q and would cross the horizontal axis into negative values; 'a straight line crossing the vertical axis above zero' is a relationship of the form P = mQ + c, in which P and Q are not proportional at all.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 20 litres per minute — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, and its units are the vertical unit for each one of the horizontal unit. Working: from (2, 50) to (6, 130) the volume changes by 130 − 50 = 80 litres and the time changes by 6 − 2 = 4 minutes, so the gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20, measured in litres for each minute. Answer: 20 litres per minute. The distractors: 25 litres per minute comes from using one point on its own, 50 ÷ 2, which assumes the line starts at the origin when the tank already held 50 litres at 2 minutes; 0.05 litres per minute comes from dividing the change in time by the change in volume, 4 ÷ 80, which gives the time for each litre but is then labelled as litres for each minute; 20 minutes for each litre has the right value with the units the wrong way round, and a tank that needed 20 minutes to gain a single litre would be filling far more slowly than this one.
- (c) 1.25 cm — Method: find the real length using the first map's scale, then use the second map's scale to find its drawn length. Working: real length = 5 × 20 000 = 100 000 cm. On the second map: 100 000 ÷ 80 000 = 1.25 cm. Wrong options: 20 cm comes from inverting the ratio of the two scales (5 × 80 000 ÷ 20 000); 5 cm comes from wrongly assuming the length looks the same on both maps; 12.5 cm comes from dropping a zero from the second scale factor and dividing by 8 000 instead of 80 000 (100 000 ÷ 8 000).
- (a) 4 — Method: for inverse proportion, x × y always stays the same value. Working: when x = 5 and y = 8, the constant is 5 × 8 = 40. When x = 10, y = 40 ÷ 10 = 4. So y = 4. Distractor 16 comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 8 × 10 ÷ 5. Distractor 3 comes from assuming y decreases by the same amount that x increases, an additive rather than proportional idea. Distractor 0.8 comes from dividing the given y-value, 8, by the new x-value, 10, without first finding the constant.
- (b) £250 — Since cost is proportional to the cube of the radius, C = kr³. Using r = 3, C = 54: 3³ = 27, so 54 = k × 27, giving k = 54 ÷ 27 = 2. The equation is C = 2r³. When r = 5: 5³ = 125, so C = 2 × 125 = 250. Treating the relationship as proportional to r² instead of r³ gives k = 54 ÷ 9 = 6 and then C = 6 × 25 = 150, which models area scaling, not volume scaling. Treating it as proportional to r itself gives k = 54 ÷ 3 = 18 and then C = 18 × 5 = 90. Finding k correctly from the cube but then multiplying it by the radius instead of by the cube of the radius gives 2 × 5 = 10, which applies the right constant to the wrong power of r. The cost of a container of radius 5 cm is £250.
- (d) 500 ml — Varnish covers a surface, so the amount needed scales with the area scale factor, which is the square of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5, so the area scale factor is 2.5 × 2.5 = 6.25. The varnish needed for the larger statue is 80 × 6.25 = 500 ml. Using 2.5 on its own would scale a length, not a surface.
- (c) £32 — First find the gradient: (26 − 14) ÷ (50 − 20) = 12 ÷ 30 = £0.40 per minute. Using the point (20, 14), the charge for 65 minutes is 14 + 0.40 × (65 − 20) = 14 + 18 = £32. Choosing £26 comes from treating the charge as directly proportional to the time, multiplying the gradient by 65 minutes and ignoring the fixed part of the charge (0.40 × 65 = 26). Choosing £40 comes from treating £14 as if it were the charge at 0 minutes, then adding the gradient multiplied by the full 65 minutes (14 + 0.40 × 65 = 40), instead of multiplying by the extra time past 20 minutes. Choosing £33.80 comes from assuming the charge is directly proportional to the minutes already known, scaling up from the point (50, 26) in the ratio 65:50 (65 ÷ 50 × 26 = 33.80).
- (b) 24 km/h — First convert 45 minutes to hours: 45 ÷ 60 = 0.75 hours. Then divide the distance by the time: 18 ÷ 0.75 = 24 km/h. Reading 45 minutes as 0.45 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of dividing by 60) gives 18 ÷ 0.45 = 40 km/h. Working out 18 × 0.75 = 13.5 multiplies by the time instead of dividing. Working out 18 ÷ 45 = 0.4 divides by 45 without ever converting the minutes to hours. The cyclist's average speed is 24 km/h.
- (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) 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).
- (d) £4 — The gradient of the tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of cost with respect to the number of passengers, in pounds per passenger. The tangent passes through (16, 184) and (24, 216), so the change in cost is 216 − 184 = 32 and the change in passengers is 24 − 16 = 8. The gradient is 32 ÷ 8 = 4. Stopping after finding the change in cost, without dividing by the change in passengers, leaves 32, not a rate. Adding the two changes instead of dividing gives 32 + 8 = 40, which is not a rate either. Reading off only the change in passengers, 8, is not a rate at all — a rate needs the change in cost as well. The instantaneous rate is £4 per extra passenger.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.