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
- (c) 40 — Working out successive terms shows where the sequence is heading, but the terms themselves keep changing — the limit is the value where the sequence stops changing, so x_{n+1} = x_n = L there. Substituting into the rule: L = 0.5L + 20. Subtracting 0.5L from both sides: L − 0.5L = 20, so 0.5L = 20, and L = 20 ÷ 0.5 = 40. The individual terms are x_1 = 0.5 × 0 + 20 = 20, x_2 = 0.5 × 20 + 20 = 30 and x_3 = 0.5 × 30 + 20 = 35, getting closer to this value but not equal to it — 35 is only the third term, not the limit. Multiplying by 0.5 instead of dividing at the final step, 20 × 0.5 = 10, undoes the rearrangement rather than completing it, and gives a value smaller than terms the sequence has already passed. Writing the fixed-point equation with the wrong sign, L = 0.5L − 20, gives 0.5L = −20 and L = −40, which cannot be right since every term in the sequence is positive and increasing. The value the sequence is approaching is 40.
- (a) 15 cm — Take the square root of each part of the area ratio to find the length ratio: the square root of 4 is 2 and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a length ratio of 2 : 5. Multiply the smaller flag's height by the scale factor 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5: 6 × 2.5 = 15, so the larger flag is 15 cm tall. Giving 37.5 cm uses the area ratio, 25 ÷ 4 = 6.25, directly as the scale factor without square-rooting it first (6 × 6.25 = 37.5). Giving 2.4 cm applies the length ratio the wrong way round, scaling the smaller flag down by 2 ÷ 5 instead of up by 5 ÷ 2 (6 × 0.4 = 2.4). Giving 27 cm adds the difference between the two area-ratio numbers, 25 − 4 = 21, onto the smaller height instead of using it as a scale factor (6 + 21 = 27).
- (c) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (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.
- (b) 450.00 kg — 1 m³ = 100 × 100 × 100 = 1,000,000 cm³, so 0.5 m³ = 500,000 cm³. Mass = density × volume = 0.9 × 500,000 = 450,000 g. Converting to kilograms by dividing by 1000 gives 450,000 ÷ 1000 = 450.00 kg. Skipping the m³-to-cm³ conversion and multiplying 0.9 × 0.5 = 0.45 treats the volume as if it were already 0.5 cm³, giving 0.45 kg. Finding the mass correctly in grams, 450,000 g, but not converting to kilograms leaves 450000.00 kg, out by a factor of 1000. Using the area conversion factor of 10,000, as if converting m² to cm², instead of the volume factor of 1,000,000 gives 0.5 × 10,000 = 5,000 'cm³', and a mass of 0.9 × 5,000 = 4,500 g, which is 4.50 kg.
- (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
- (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
- (c) 48 mm — Method: extension = k × force, where k = extension ÷ force. Working: k = 12 ÷ 5 = 2.4 mm per N. At 20 N: extension = 2.4 × 20 = 48 mm. Wrong options: 32 mm comes from adding the extension and force numbers instead of scaling (12 + 20); 3 mm comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (12 × 5 ÷ 20); 36 mm comes from using an incorrect scale factor of 3 between the forces instead of the correct factor of 4 (20 ÷ 5).
- (d) A falling curve that never touches either axis — Method: inverse proportion means the product of the two quantities is constant, so P = k ÷ Q; as Q grows P shrinks, and P can never reach zero because k divided by a number is never zero. Working: taking k = 12 as an example, the pairs (1, 12), (2, 6), (3, 4), (6, 2) and (12, 1) drop steeply at first and then flatten out, so the graph is a curve that approaches both axes without meeting either of them. Answer: a falling curve that never touches either axis. The distractors: 'a straight line through the origin' is the graph of direct proportion, P = kQ, which is the opposite relationship; 'a straight line with a negative gradient' is the commonest error, reading 'P falls as Q rises' as a straight line, but on such a line P would drop by the same amount for every increase in Q and would cross the horizontal axis into negative values; 'a straight line crossing the vertical axis above zero' is a relationship of the form P = mQ + c, in which P and Q are not proportional at all.
- (c) £32 — First find the gradient: (26 − 14) ÷ (50 − 20) = 12 ÷ 30 = £0.40 per minute. Using the point (20, 14), the charge for 65 minutes is 14 + 0.40 × (65 − 20) = 14 + 18 = £32. Choosing £26 comes from treating the charge as directly proportional to the time, multiplying the gradient by 65 minutes and ignoring the fixed part of the charge (0.40 × 65 = 26). Choosing £40 comes from treating £14 as if it were the charge at 0 minutes, then adding the gradient multiplied by the full 65 minutes (14 + 0.40 × 65 = 40), instead of multiplying by the extra time past 20 minutes. Choosing £33.80 comes from assuming the charge is directly proportional to the minutes already known, scaling up from the point (50, 26) in the ratio 65:50 (65 ÷ 50 × 26 = 33.80).
- (d) 20 km/h — Method: average speed = total distance ÷ total time, with the time written in hours. Working: 1 hour 30 minutes = 1.5 hours, and 30 ÷ 1.5 = 20. Answer: 20 km/h. The distractors: 45 km/h comes from multiplying 30 by 1.5 instead of dividing; 15 km/h comes from dividing by 2, as if the ride had taken 2 hours; 30 km/h comes from dividing by the whole hour only and ignoring the extra 30 minutes.
- (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) £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.
- (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.)
- (c) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.