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
- (b) 19.0 g/cm³ — Density = mass ÷ volume. 342.6 ÷ 18 = 19.0333…, which rounds to 19.0 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). 6166.8 g/cm³ comes from multiplying the mass by the volume instead of dividing (342.6 × 18). 324.6 g/cm³ comes from subtracting the volume from the mass (342.6 − 18) instead of dividing. 0.1 g/cm³ comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume (18 ÷ 342.6 = 0.0525…, rounded to 1 d.p.).
- (c) 4 m/s — The average rate of change of distance with respect to time over an interval is the change in distance divided by the change in time — the gradient of the chord joining the two endpoints, not the gradient of any tangent inside the interval. From t = 3 to t = 8 the change in time is 8 − 3 = 5 and the change in distance is 32 − 12 = 20, so the average speed is 20 ÷ 5 = 4 m/s. Reporting the change in distance on its own, as 20 m/s, is not a speed: those 20 metres were covered over the whole 5 seconds, not in one second, so the 20 still has to be divided by the 5. The tangent's gradient of 3 m/s is the instantaneous speed at the single moment t = 6, not the average over the whole 5-second interval, so it must not be used here. Adding the change in distance and the change in time instead of dividing gives 20 + 5 = 25, which is not a speed. The average speed of the cyclist over the interval is 4 m/s.
- (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.
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (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.
- (c) 4 km — Since signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, S = k/d². Using d = 2, S = 20: 2² = 4, so 20 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 20 × 4 = 80. The equation is S = 80/d². When S = 5: d² = 80 ÷ 5 = 16, so d = 4 (taking the positive root, since distance cannot be negative). Stopping at d² = 16 without taking the square root leaves 16, the square of the distance, not the distance itself. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to distance itself, rather than to its square, gives k = 20 × 2 = 40 and then d = 40 ÷ 5 = 8, a different relationship. Multiplying by S instead of dividing by it when isolating d² gives d² = 80 × 5 = 400 and d = 20, the wrong operation. The distance at which the signal strength is 5 units is 4 km.
- (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
- (b) 4 — Method: find the length scale factor by taking the cube root of the volume scale factor, then square it to get the area scale factor. Working: 8 = 2³, so the length scale factor is 2, and the area scale factor is 2² = 4. Answer: 4. 8 comes from using the volume scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor. 64 comes from squaring the volume scale factor, 8² = 64, instead of first taking its cube root. 2 comes from correctly finding the length scale factor but then forgetting to square it.
- (b) 12 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 4, y = 8: √4 = 2, so 8 = k × 2, giving k = 8 ÷ 2 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When x = 9: √9 = 3, so y = 4 × 3 = 12. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself, rather than to √x, gives k = 8 ÷ 4 = 2 and then y = 2 × 9 = 18, which is a different relationship. Multiplying k by the new x-value instead of by its square root gives y = 4 × 9 = 36, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √9 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 3, not the value of y. When x = 9, y = 12.
- (c) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
- (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).
- (c) −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, which on this graph is a number of litres for each mile, and a negative gradient means the vertical quantity is going down. Working: from (0, 45) to (150, 15) the fuel changes by 15 − 45 = −30 litres while the distance changes by 150 − 0 = 150 miles, so the gradient is −30 ÷ 150 = −0.2, which says the tank loses 0.2 litres for every mile driven. Answer: −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile. The distractors: '0.2, the car gains 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from subtracting the fuel values the other way round, 45 − 15 = 30, which drops the minus sign and reverses what the graph says; '−5, the car uses 5 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from dividing the change in distance by the change in fuel, 150 ÷ (−30), turning the gradient upside down; '−30, the car uses 30 litres of fuel for each mile' is the change in fuel on its own, never divided by the 150 miles travelled.
- (b) 1500 — The rate is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5 litres per minute. Converting to cm³: 1.5 × 1000 = 1500 cm³ per minute. Getting 3000 comes from converting 3 litres to cm³ first (3000 cm³) and forgetting to divide by the 2 minutes. Getting 750 comes from dividing by the 2 minutes a second time after converting (1500 ÷ 2). Getting 2000 comes from converting the 2 minutes as if it were litres (2 × 1000) instead of using the correct rate of 1.5 litres per minute.
- (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.