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) £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.
- (d) The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g — Work out the cost per 100 g of each box. 750 g box: 270p ÷ 7.5 = 36p per 100 g. 500 g box: 195p ÷ 5 = 39p per 100 g. The lower cost per 100 g is the better value, so the 750 g box at 36p per 100 g is the answer. Choosing the 500 g box at 39p per 100 g gets the maths right but picks the higher unit price, not realising a smaller cost per 100 g is the better deal. Choosing the 500 g box because £1.95 is lower than £2.70 compares the total prices without allowing for the different pack sizes at all. Working out 270 ÷ 5 = 54p divides the 750 g box's price by the wrong number of hundred-grams (the 500 g box's), giving a rate that belongs to neither box. The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g, is the better value.
- (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.
- (d) £3.60 per component — The gradient of a cost-against-components graph has units of pounds per component, since cost is measured in pounds and the horizontal axis counts components. So 3.60 means it costs an extra £3.60 to produce one more component at that point. Calling it '£3.60 total cost' confuses the gradient, a rate, with the y-value on the graph, which is the total cost itself. Giving it as 3.60 components per pound swaps which axis is on top, giving the units of the reciprocal gradient, not the gradient itself. Turning 3.60 into a percentage invents a unit that has no basis in the graph's axes — a gradient here is a number of pounds, not a percentage. Always build the gradient's units from the two axes' own units, in the order y-axis over x-axis.
- (a) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
- (b) 20 km — The scale 2 cm : 5 km means each 1 cm on the map represents 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5 km in real life. The footpath is 8 cm on the map, so its real length is 8 × 2.5 = 20 km. 40 km comes from multiplying 8 by 5 directly, ignoring that the scale's '2 cm' has to be divided out first: 8 × 5 = 40. 3.2 km comes from dividing 8 by 2.5 instead of multiplying: 8 ÷ 2.5 = 3.2. 5 km comes from multiplying 2.5 by the scale's '2' instead of by the footpath's 8 cm: 2.5 × 2 = 5.
- (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) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
- (d) 26.6 — Find the constant multiplier — the mass of each metre of pipe: 12.6 ÷ 4.5 = 2.8, so the mass is always 2.8 times the length. For a length of 9.5 m, the mass is 9.5 × 2.8 = 26.6 kg. 17.6 comes from assuming an additive relationship instead of a multiplicative one — adding the increase in length (9.5 − 4.5 = 5) onto 12.6. 3.4 comes from using the multiplier the wrong way round (4.5 ÷ 12.6, rounded to 1 d.p.), then multiplying by 9.5. 12.6 comes from simply repeating the given mass, without applying the multiplier to the new length.
- (d) 24.6 km/h — Average speed = distance ÷ time, with time in hours. 47 minutes = 47 ÷ 60 hours. 19.3 ÷ (47 ÷ 60) = 19.3 ÷ 47 × 60 = 24.638…, which rounds to 24.6 km/h (1 d.p.). 0.4 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 47 and treating the result as km/h directly, without converting the minutes to hours at all. 41.1 km/h comes from converting minutes to hours by dividing by 100 instead of 60 (19.3 ÷ 47 × 100). 0.3 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 60 instead of converting the 47 minutes to hours first.
- (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.
- (d) 90 cm — Method: scale each dimension by the scale factor, then find the perimeter. Working: model height = 240 ÷ 8 = 30 cm; model width = 120 ÷ 8 = 15 cm. Perimeter = 2 × (30 + 15) = 90 cm. Wrong options: 11.25 cm comes from squaring the scale factor as if finding an area (720 ÷ 64); 510 cm comes from scaling only one dimension and leaving the other at full size; 720 cm comes from finding the real perimeter (2 × (240 + 120)) but forgetting to scale it down at all.
- (d) 8 — The product of price and number of tickets is constant: k = 4 × 12 = 48. At £6 per ticket, the number of tickets is 48 ÷ 6 = 8. Getting 18 comes from treating price and tickets as directly proportional and working out 12 × 6 ÷ 4 instead of dividing k by the new price. Getting 12 assumes the number of tickets does not change when the price changes. Getting 6 comes from writing down the new price instead of working out the number of tickets.
- (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.
- (b) 120 minutes — Method: find the rate in bottles per minute, then divide the order size by the rate. Working: rate = 810 ÷ 45 = 18 bottles per minute. Time = 2,160 ÷ 18 = 120 minutes. Wrong options: 1,350 minutes comes from subtracting 810 from 2,160 instead of using the rate; 48 minutes comes from dividing the order size by the original time (2,160 ÷ 45) instead of the rate; 108 minutes comes from rounding the rate to 20 bottles per minute before dividing.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.