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) 0.62 miles — The gradient of the line is the change in miles divided by the change in kilometres: 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62, so 1 kilometre converts to 0.62 miles. Dividing the wrong way round, 50 ÷ 31 = 1.612..., rounds to 1.61 miles — that finds how many kilometres are in 1 mile, not the reverse. Doubling the gradient, 1.24 miles, comes from using 62 ÷ 50 instead of 31 ÷ 50. Reading off the y-coordinate of the given point without dividing by the x-coordinate gives 31.00 miles, which is the number of miles for 50 kilometres, not for 1 kilometre.
- (d) 25 — Gradient = (60 − 20) ÷ (15 − 5) = 40 ÷ 10 = 4 litres per minute. Since the butt is empty at t = 0, V = 4t. Setting V = 100 gives t = 100 ÷ 4 = 25 minutes.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
- (b) 1:25 — Write the ratio time : volume using the numbers in the question: 8 : 200. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 8, to give 1 : 25. (25:1 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, volume : time. 8:25 comes from dividing only the volume by 8 and leaving the time unchanged. 25:8 is that same mistake written the wrong way round.)
- (a) 28.8 km/h — Method: first change metres per second into metres per hour, then change metres into kilometres. Working: 8 × 3600 = 28800 metres per hour, then 28800 ÷ 1000 = 28.8 km/h. So the runner's speed is 28.8 km/h. Distractor 28800 km/h comes from stopping after the first step and forgetting to change metres into kilometres. Distractor 2.22 km/h comes from dividing by 3600 instead of multiplying, then multiplying by 1000. Distractor 2.88 km/h comes from using 360 instead of 3600 seconds in an hour, missing a zero.
- (d) 135 m² — Method: for area, the scale factor must be squared. Working: area scale = 300² = 90 000. 15 × 90 000 = 1,350,000 cm². Convert to m² by dividing by 10 000: 1,350,000 ÷ 10 000 = 135 m². Wrong options: 0.45 m² comes from using the linear scale factor (×300) instead of squaring it; 1,350,000 m² comes from forgetting to convert the answer from cm² to m²; 13,500 m² comes from dividing by 100 instead of 10 000 when converting units.
- (a) 6 — Since y is inversely proportional to x², y = k/x². Using x = 2, y = 45: 2² = 4, so 45 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 45 × 4 = 180. The equation is y = 180/x². When y = 5: x² = 180 ÷ 5 = 36, so x = 6, taking the positive root because the question states that x is positive. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to x itself gives k = 45 × 2 = 90 and then x = 90 ÷ 5 = 18, a different relationship. Multiplying by y instead of dividing by it when isolating x² gives x² = 180 × 5 = 900 and x = 30, the wrong operation. Stopping at x² = 36 without taking the square root leaves 36, not the value of x. When y = 5, x = 6.
- (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.
- (b) 1 : 500 — smallest real distance per cm (5 m), most detail — Method: compare what one centimetre represents in real life for each scale — the scale with the smallest real distance per cm shows the most detail. Working: for 1 : 500, 1 cm represents 500 cm (5 m); for 1 : 5000, 1 cm represents 50 m; for 1 : 50 000, 1 cm represents 500 m. Since 5 m is the smallest, 1 : 500 shows the most detail. Wrong options: '1 : 50 000 — covers the largest real area' wrongly assumes covering more area means more detail, when it is the opposite; '1 : 5000 — the middle value' wrongly assumes the middle scale is automatically the most balanced; '1 : 500 — covers the largest real distance' picks the correct scale but states an incorrect fact, since 1 : 500 actually covers the smallest real distance per cm.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (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) Inverse proportion — A curve that decreases and never touches either axis is the standard shape for inverse proportion, y = k/x. Direct proportion graphs are straight lines through the origin, which this is not, so it must be inverse proportion rather than neither.
- (b) 5/7 — The enlargement multiplier is 1.4, which as a fraction is 7/5. To reverse an enlargement, use the reciprocal of the multiplier: flip 7/5 to get 5/7. 7/5 comes from using the enlargement multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from treating the reverse as 'give back the extra amount', working out 1 − (1.4 − 1) = 0.6, instead of using the reciprocal. 5/2 comes from ignoring the whole number in 1.4 and inverting only the decimal part, 0.4, as if it were the whole multiplier.
- (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) The population is growing at 2500 people per year. — The gradient of a tangent to a graph gives the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity on the vertical axis with respect to the quantity on the horizontal axis, at that exact point — not the total change and not an average. Here the vertical axis is population in thousands and the horizontal axis is time in years, so the gradient is measured in thousands of people per year. A gradient of 2.5 means the population is growing at an instantaneous rate of 2.5 thousand people per year, and since P is measured in thousands, 2.5 × 1000 = 2500 people per year. This describes the rate of change at that instant, not the total increase over the 6 years and not an average population.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.