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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 180 pages — The gradient is (9 − 24) ÷ (300 − 0) = −15 ÷ 300 = −0.05, so the cartridge uses 0.05 ml of ink per page. At p = 300 there are 9 ml left. The extra pages before the cartridge is empty is 9 ÷ 0.05 = 180 pages. Giving 9 as the answer confuses the millilitres of ink remaining with the number of pages remaining — they are different quantities with different units. Multiplying instead of dividing, 9 × 0.05 = 0.45, does not undo the rate correctly. Working out the total number of pages a full cartridge lasts, 24 ÷ 0.05 = 480 pages, answers how many pages the cartridge prints in total from full, not how many more pages it can print from the 300-page point.
- (d) 8/5 — Two masses can only be compared once they are in the same unit. Since 1 kg is 1000 g, the recipe needs 1200 g. The recipe's mass is being written as a fraction of Dan's mass, so 1200 goes on the top and 750 on the bottom, giving 1200/750. The highest common factor of the two is 150: 1200 ÷ 150 = 8 and 750 ÷ 150 = 5. The fraction is 8/5, which is greater than 1 because the recipe needs more flour than Dan has.
- (c) £310 — Gradient = (210 − 130) ÷ (7 − 3) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20, so the monthly rate is £20. Using C = 20m + c with the point (3, 130): 130 = 60 + c, so c = 70. After 12 months: C = 20 × 12 + 70 = 240 + 70 = £310.
- (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.
- (a) 5/12 — Work out the distance still to travel: 372 − 217 = 155 miles. Form the fraction 155/372; both numbers share a factor of 31, so 155 ÷ 31 = 5 and 372 ÷ 31 = 12, giving 5/12. 7/12 comes from writing the distance already travelled as the fraction of the journey (217/372 = 7/12), instead of the distance still to travel. 145/372 comes from miscalculating 372 − 217 as 145 instead of 155. 5/7 comes from comparing the remaining distance with the distance already travelled (155/217 = 5/7), instead of with the total journey.
- (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.
- (c) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
- (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) d ÷ t — Average speed = distance ÷ time, so the expression is d ÷ t. Writing t ÷ d inverts the formula, giving the time per kilometre instead of the speed. Writing d × t confuses speed with the formula for distance travelled (distance = speed × time) used the wrong way round. Writing d + t treats the relationship as additive instead of using division.
- (c) 183 mg — Apply the decay, then add the new dose, once for each hour. Hour 1: 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 140 + 50 = 190. Hour 2: 0.7 × 190 = 133, then 133 + 50 = 183, so there is 183 mg after 2 hours. Forgetting the top-up dose and only applying the decay gives 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 0.7 × 140 = 98 — this ignores that a further 50 mg is given every hour. Adding the 50 mg BEFORE the decay is applied, instead of after, gives 0.7 × (200 + 50) = 175, then 0.7 × (175 + 50) = 157.5, which changes how much of the dose is eliminated in the same hour it is given. Multiplying by 0.3, the percentage ELIMINATED, instead of by 0.7, the percentage REMAINING, gives 0.3 × 200 + 50 = 110, then 0.3 × 110 + 50 = 83 — this mixes up the amount that leaves the bloodstream with the amount that stays in it. Always check whether a percentage describes what remains or what is removed before choosing the multiplier.
- (d) 2748 — A 7% increase each year means the value becomes 100% + 7% = 107% of the previous year's value, and 107% = 1.07, so the multiplier is 1.07. Multiply by 1.07 for each of the 2 years: 2400 × 1.07 × 1.07 = 2747.76, which rounds to 2748. (2736 comes from using simple growth instead of compound: 2400 + 2 × (2400 × 0.07) = 2736. 2568 is the population after only 1 year, 2400 × 1.07, forgetting the second year's growth. 2747 comes from rounding 2747.76 down instead of up to the nearest whole number.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.