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) 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).
- (a) 35/32 — Work out each weekly total first. Last week: 5 × 7 = 35 hours. This week: 4 × 8 = 32 hours. Last week's total is being written as a fraction of this week's total, so last week goes on the top and this week goes on the bottom, giving 35/32. The two totals share no common factor, so the fraction cannot be cancelled. It is greater than 1, which says that Priya worked more hours last week than this week.
- (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
- (d) 100 — Rearrange L = 0.6L + 40 by collecting the L terms on one side: L − 0.6L = 40, which gives 0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ 0.4 = 100. Subtracting the other way round, 0.6L − L = 40, gives −0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ (−0.4) = −100 — a sign error that flips the answer negative even though a long-run value here must be positive. Ignoring the 0.6L term completely and solving L = 40 directly gives 40, which throws away the recurrence's own multiplier. Dividing 40 by 0.6 instead of by the correct coefficient 0.4 gives 40 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 66.7, a slip that comes from dividing by the coefficient of L on the RIGHT of the original equation rather than by what is left once the L terms are collected on one side. Always collect the L terms first, then divide by whatever coefficient of L remains.
- (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) 1:25 — Write the ratio time : volume using the numbers in the question: 8 : 200. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 8, to give 1 : 25. (25:1 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, volume : time. 8:25 comes from dividing only the volume by 8 and leaving the time unchanged. 25:8 is that same mistake written the wrong way round.)
- (d) 3/2 — Work out the number of altos: 40% of 30 = 12. The rest are sopranos, so there are 30 − 12 = 18 sopranos. Form the fraction 18/12; both numbers share a factor of 6, so 18 ÷ 6 = 3 and 12 ÷ 6 = 2, giving 3/2. 2/3 comes from writing the fraction the wrong way round, as altos over sopranos (12/18). 3/5 comes from comparing the sopranos with the whole choir (18/30), instead of with the altos. 7/3 comes from miscalculating 30 − 12 as 28 instead of 18, then forming 28/12.
- (d) 218 — The rule x_{n+1} = 0.8x_n + 50 must be applied once for each step, using the result of the previous step every time — not the same starting value repeated. Starting from x_0 = 200: 0.8 × 200 = 160, so x_1 = 160 + 50 = 210. Then 0.8 × 210 = 168, so x_2 = 168 + 50 = 218. Stopping after one iteration leaves x_1 = 210, not x_2. Applying only the multiplier twice without adding 50 at each step uses 0.8² = 0.64, and 0.64 × 200 = 128, which drops the 50 completely. Adding 50 twice at the end instead of once per step, 128 + 100 = 228, still does not reproduce the actual recurrence, because the 50 added at the first step is itself multiplied by 0.8 at the second step. After two iterations, x_2 = 218.
- (c) £7617.60 — To decrease by 8% each year, multiply by 0.92 (100% − 8%) twice. £9000 × 0.92 × 0.92 = £7617.60. £7560.00 comes from treating the two 8% decreases as a single flat 16% decrease applied once instead of compounding: £9000 × 0.84 = £7560.00. £8280.00 comes from applying the 8% decrease only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £9000 × 0.92 = £8280.00. £10497.60 comes from multiplying by 1.08 twice, increasing the value instead of decreasing it: £9000 × 1.08 × 1.08 = £10497.60.
- (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
- (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.
- (a) 1.375 — The multiplier is the new value divided by the original value: 176 000 ÷ 128 000 = 1.375. Choosing 0.375 comes from working out the increase as a fraction of the original (48 000 ÷ 128 000 = 0.375) and stopping there, without adding on the 1 whole that represents the original turnover. Choosing 0.727 comes from dividing the 2023 turnover by the 2024 turnover, the wrong way round (128 000 ÷ 176 000, rounded to 3 decimal places). Choosing 137.5 comes from writing the multiplier as a percentage — the 2024 turnover is 137.5% of the 2023 turnover — instead of converting it to the decimal multiplier 1.375.
- (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
- (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.