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) 2.17 litres per minute — There are 60 minutes in an hour, so to convert litres per hour to litres per minute you divide by 60: 130 ÷ 60 = 2.1666..., which rounds to 2.17 litres per minute. Multiplying by 60 instead of dividing gives 130 × 60 = 7800.00 litres per minute, using the conversion factor the wrong way round. Leaving the rate unchanged, 130.00, ignores that 'per hour' and 'per minute' are different units. Dividing by 50 instead of 60, misremembering the number of minutes in an hour, gives 130 ÷ 50 = 2.60 litres per minute.
- (c) Falling at £950 per year — The gradient of a tangent on a value-age graph is a rate, in pounds per year, so −950 means the van's value is falling at £950 per year at that instant. Writing this as 950% per year mistakes a rate measured in pounds per year for a percentage — the units of a gradient come from the units on the two axes, £ and years, not from a percentage. Saying the value 'falls by £950 over the next year' treats the instantaneous rate at age 2 as if it stayed constant for a whole year, which finds an average future change, not the instantaneous rate at age 2 itself. Reading the sign the wrong way round gives 'rising at £950 per year', which would mean the van is gaining value. Always match the units of a gradient to the units on the two axes of the graph.
- (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.
- (a) 11:00 to 12:00 — Method: the instantaneous rate of change is zero at a turning point, where a rising trend becomes a falling trend; that lies within the first interval whose difference has changed sign from the interval before it. Working: the differences between consecutive readings are +3.4 °C (09:00 to 10:00), +1.7 °C (10:00 to 11:00), −0.3 °C (11:00 to 12:00) and −2.6 °C (12:00 to 13:00); the sign changes from positive to negative within 11:00 to 12:00, since the temperature is still rising up to 11:00 (20.1 °C, the highest recorded value) and has fallen by 12:00, so the instantaneous rate of change was zero somewhere within that interval. Choosing 09:00 to 10:00 picks out the interval with the largest positive difference, +3.4 °C, confusing the fastest rise with no change at all. Choosing 10:00 to 11:00 picks the last interval where the temperature was still rising, one interval too early, without checking that the very next interval turns negative. Choosing 12:00 to 13:00 picks out the interval with the largest-magnitude difference, −2.6 °C, the fastest fall, not where the change is zero. Zero instantaneous rate of change happens at a turning point, where the readings stop rising and start falling — find the FIRST interval whose difference has flipped sign from the one before it, not the biggest change or an interval where the old sign still held.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (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.
- (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.)
- (b) 35 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area. 84 ÷ 2.4 = 35 N/m². 201.6 N/m² comes from multiplying the force by the area instead of dividing (84 × 2.4). 81.6 N/m² comes from subtracting the area from the force (84 − 2.4) instead of dividing. 0.03 N/m² comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area (2.4 ÷ 84).
- (c) 500 — Pressure = force ÷ area = 250 ÷ 0.5 = 500 pascals. Getting 125 comes from multiplying the force by the area instead of dividing (250 × 0.5 = 125). Getting 249.5 comes from subtracting the area from the force instead of dividing. Getting 50 comes from misreading the area as 5 m² instead of 0.5 m² and dividing 250 by 5.
- (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).
- (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.
- (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
- (a) 7 — The average rate of change of y with respect to x over an interval is the change in y divided by the change in x between its two endpoints — the gradient of the chord joining them, not a rate at a single point. At x = 1: 2 × 1 = 2, so y = 1 + 2 = 3. At x = 4: 2 × 4 = 8, so y = 16 + 8 = 24. The change in y is 24 − 3 = 21 and the change in x is 4 − 1 = 3, so the average rate of change is 21 ÷ 3 = 7. Reporting the change in y, 21, on its own is not a rate of change, because it has not been divided by the 3 units of x over which it happened. Reporting 3 is not a rate either — 3 is the width of the interval, and also the value of y at x = 1, and neither of those measures how fast y is changing. Subtracting in the wrong order gives −21 ÷ 3 = −7, the wrong sign. The average rate of change of y with respect to x over the interval is 7.
- (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.
- (a) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.