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
- (d) 4 years — Apply the recurrence repeatedly. V_1 = 0.85 × 18000 = 15300. V_2 = 0.85 × 15300 = 13005. V_3 = 0.85 × 13005 = 11054.25. V_4 = 0.85 × 11054.25 = 9396.1125. V_3 = £11054.25 is still above £10000, but V_4 = £9396.11 has dropped below it, so the answer is 4 years. Stopping at V_3 and calling it '3 years' misreads £11054.25 as already below £10000, or comes from wrongly modelling the fall as a flat £2700 a year (15% of the original value each time, without compounding), which crosses £10000 a year too early. Continuing one extra step to V_5 = 0.85 × 9396.1125 = 7986.70 and calling it '5 years' overshoots, since the value had already dropped below £10000 at V_4. Doubling the percentage decrease to 30% by mistake gives V_1 = 0.7 × 18000 = 12600, then V_2 = 0.7 × 12600 = 8820, which is already below £10000 after only 2 years — the wrong rate crosses the threshold too fast.
- (a) 2.5 — Method: the factor by which the SIZE of one rate is greater than the size of another is found by dividing the larger magnitude by the smaller magnitude, ignoring their signs, so here the two magnitudes to work with are 8.75 and 3.5. Working: 8.75 ÷ 3.5 = 2.5, so the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 2 hours was 2.5 times the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 8 hours. Subtracting the two magnitudes, 8.75 − 3.5 = 5.25, gives how many thousand litres per hour greater one rate is than the other, not how many times greater — that is a difference, not a factor. Dividing the magnitudes the wrong way round, 3.5 ÷ 8.75 = 0.4, gives the factor by which the rate at t = 8 hours is smaller than at t = 2 hours, the reciprocal of what was asked for. Adding the magnitudes, 8.75 + 3.5 = 12.25, combines the two rates instead of comparing them, and does not answer a 'by what factor' question at all. A question that asks 'by what factor' is always answered by a division, in the order the question states it — check which rate is on top before you divide.
- (b) 1:12 — C = 12n means that for every 1 pen there are 12 pence of cost, so n : C = 1 : 12, and the highest common factor of 1 and 12 is 1, so this is already in its simplest form. Writing C : n instead of n : C gives 12 : 1, the ratio the wrong way round. Reading C = 12n as '12 more than n' instead of '12 times n', so n = 1 gives C = 13, gives 1 : 13, from adding instead of multiplying. Choosing n = 12, so C = 12 × 12 = 144, gives the correct pair of values n : C = 12 : 144, but the ratio the right way round left unsimplified — 12 and 144 share a common factor of 12, which has not been cancelled.
- (b) 5 years — The recurrence P_{n+1} = 1.1P_n − 30 must be applied once per year, checking after each application whether the population has passed 460. Starting from P_0 = 400: 400 × 1.1 − 30 = 410, so P_1 = 410. Then 410 × 1.1 − 30 = 421, so P_2 = 421. Then 421 × 1.1 − 30 = 433.1, so P_3 = 433.1. Then 433.1 × 1.1 − 30 = 446.41, so P_4 = 446.41, which is still below 460. Then 446.41 × 1.1 − 30 = 461.051, so P_5 = 461.051, the first value above 460. The population first exceeds 460 after 5 complete years. Stopping at P_4 = 446.41 and reporting 4 years reports the last year the population was still below 460, not the first year it was above. Counting the starting value P_0 = 400 as a year of growth makes P_5 the sixth number in the list and gives 6 years, but P_0 is the population before any year has passed, so P_5 is reached after 5 years, not 6. Reading "exceed 460" as "exceed the starting population of 400" instead gives P_1 = 410, already above 400, and 1 year — but the threshold named in the question is 460, not the starting value, so always check every value against the number actually stated in the question.
- (c) 54 — Method: y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 18 ÷ 5 = 3.6. At x = 15: y = 3.6 × 15 = 54. Wrong options: 28 comes from adding the change in x (10) onto y instead of scaling; 6 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 5 × 18 = 90, then y = 90 ÷ 15 = 6); 60 comes from rounding the constant up to 4 instead of using 3.6.
- (a) 12 m² — Real length = 8 × 50 = 400 cm = 4 m. Real width = 6 × 50 = 300 cm = 3 m. Real area = 4 × 3 = 12 m². Scaling the plan area (8 × 6 = 48 cm²) by 50 instead of by 50 squared gives 48 × 50 = 2400 cm² = 0.24 m² — area scales by the square of the length scale factor, not the scale factor itself. Multiplying the real dimensions in centimetres, 400 × 300 = 120 000, and calling the result 120 000 m² mistakes square centimetres for square metres. Converting only the length to metres and leaving the width as 6 (treating centimetres as metres), 4 × 6 = 24, gives 24 m², from a scaling that was never finished.
- (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) 250 miles — Find the distance travelled in 1 hour: 150 ÷ 3 = 50 miles. Multiply by 5 hours: 50 × 5 = 250 miles. Giving 300 miles doubles the original distance (150 × 2 = 300) using a scale factor of 2 instead of the correct 5 ÷ 3. Giving 200 miles adds only one extra hour's distance, 50, instead of the two extra hours actually needed (150 + 50 = 200, rather than 150 + 100). Giving 90 miles divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (150 × 3 ÷ 5 = 90).
- (d) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
- (d) 3 : 5 — Simplify the area ratio: 18 : 50 divides by 2 to give 9 : 25. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so take the square root of each part: the square root of 9 is 3, and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a side length ratio of 3 : 5. Giving 5 : 3 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 9 : 25 is the simplified area ratio, without square-rooting it. Giving 18 : 50 is the area ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (c) 14 litres — Method: find the amount of fuel used per km first, then use it to find the fuel needed for 175 km. Working: 24 ÷ 300 = 0.08 litres per km, and 0.08 × 175 = 14 litres. So 14 litres are needed. Distractor 24 litres comes from assuming the same amount of fuel is used no matter the distance, without scaling. Distractor 21 litres comes from misreading the original distance as 200 km instead of 300 km. Distractor 1.4 litres comes from a decimal-point slip, giving an answer ten times too small.
- (c) 1.2 — Add the parts of the ratio: 6 + 1 = 7. Divide the total amount by the number of parts: 8.4 ÷ 7 = 1.2 litres, which is the value of one part and also the amount of syrup, since syrup is 1 part. (7.2 litres is the amount of water, using 6 parts instead of 1. 1.4 comes from dividing 8.4 by 6 — the water's part of the ratio — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7. 0.84 comes from dividing 8.4 by 10 instead of by 7.)
- (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).
- (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.
- (c) The tangent is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. — Method: at any point where a distance–time graph is momentarily neither increasing nor decreasing, the tangent to the graph at that point is horizontal, and the gradient of a horizontal line is 0 — this is the instantaneous rate of change at that instant. Working: since the hiker's distance is neither increasing nor decreasing at t = 45 minutes, the tangent there is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. Claiming the tangent is vertical, with an undefined gradient, is the opposite of what the stem says: a vertical tangent would mean the distance was changing infinitely fast at that instant, not that it had stopped changing, and on a distance–time graph it cannot happen at all. Reading the gradient as 45, the time value given in the stem, mistakes a value used to LOCATE the point for the rate of change AT that point. Claiming the gradient cannot be found without also knowing the distance at t = 45 minutes overlooks that 'momentarily stationary' already tells you the rate of change directly, without needing to read any distance value at all. Whenever a stem tells you a quantity is momentarily not changing, that is telling you the instantaneous rate of change directly — it is 0, and no further data is needed to find it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.