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
- (a) £150 — Value after year 1: £800 × 0.75 = £600. Value after year 2: £600 × 0.75 = £450. The loss during the second year alone is £600 − £450 = £150. £450 comes from giving the value remaining after 2 years, not the amount lost during the second year. £200 comes from working out the loss during the first year instead of the second: £800 − £600 = £200. £350 comes from working out the total loss over both years instead of just the second year's loss: £800 − £450 = £350.
- (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) £136 — 5% interest each year means the value becomes 100% + 5% = 105% of the previous year's value, and 105% = 1.05, so the multiplier is 1.05. Account A: £3200 × 1.05 × 1.05 = £3528. Account B (simple interest): £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.03) = £3392. The difference is £3528 − £3392 = £136. (£128 comes from working out Account A with simple interest too, instead of compound: £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.05) = £3520, then £3520 − £3392 = £128. £3528 is the value of Account A on its own, not the difference between the two accounts. £3392 is the value of Account B on its own, not the difference.)
- (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.
- (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) £338.69 — To increase by 12% each year, multiply by 1.12 twice. £270 × 1.12 × 1.12 = £338.688, which rounds to £338.69 (nearest penny, since the third decimal place is 8). £334.80 comes from treating the two 12% increases as a single flat 24% increase applied once instead of compounding: £270 × 1.24 = £334.80. £302.40 comes from applying the 12% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £270 × 1.12 = £302.40. £338.68 comes from rounding £338.688 down to the nearest penny instead of up.
- (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.
- (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
- (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.
- (d) 36 mph — First convert 1 hour 30 minutes to hours: 30 minutes is half an hour, so the time is 1.5 hours. Then divide the distance by the time: 54 ÷ 1.5 = 36 mph. Reading 1 hour 30 minutes as 1.3 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 54 ÷ 1.3 ≈ 41.54 mph. Working out 54 ÷ 30 = 1.8 divides by the number of minutes only, ignoring the hour. Working out 54 × 1.5 = 81 multiplies by the time instead of dividing. The coach's average speed is 36 mph.
- (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) £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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.