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) 27 : 64 — For similar solids, the ratio of volumes is the ratio of lengths cubed: 3³ : 4³ = 27 : 64. 3 : 4 comes from using the height ratio itself as the volume ratio, without cubing it at all. 9 : 16 comes from squaring each part instead of cubing (3² : 4²) — squaring is the rule for area, not volume. 27 : 4 comes from cubing only the first part of the ratio (3³ = 27), and leaving the second part uncubed.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 18/25 — First find the new number of rose bushes: 90 × 1.2 = 108 (a 20% increase multiplies by 1.2). Then write 108 over 150 and divide top and bottom by 6 to get 18/25. Choosing 3/5 comes from using the original 90 rose bushes without applying the 20% increase (90/150 = 3/5). Choosing 25/18 comes from writing the number of lavender bushes over the new number of rose bushes, the wrong way round. Choosing 3/25 comes from multiplying 90 by 0.2 instead of 1.2, finding only the increase (18) rather than the new total, then writing 18/150 = 3/25.
- (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.
- (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).
- (b) 5 years — The recurrence P_{n+1} = 1.1P_n − 30 must be applied once per year, checking after each application whether the population has passed 460. Starting from P_0 = 400: 400 × 1.1 − 30 = 410, so P_1 = 410. Then 410 × 1.1 − 30 = 421, so P_2 = 421. Then 421 × 1.1 − 30 = 433.1, so P_3 = 433.1. Then 433.1 × 1.1 − 30 = 446.41, so P_4 = 446.41, which is still below 460. Then 446.41 × 1.1 − 30 = 461.051, so P_5 = 461.051, the first value above 460. The population first exceeds 460 after 5 complete years. Stopping at P_4 = 446.41 and reporting 4 years reports the last year the population was still below 460, not the first year it was above. Counting the starting value P_0 = 400 as a year of growth makes P_5 the sixth number in the list and gives 6 years, but P_0 is the population before any year has passed, so P_5 is reached after 5 years, not 6. Reading "exceed 460" as "exceed the starting population of 400" instead gives P_1 = 410, already above 400, and 1 year — but the threshold named in the question is 460, not the starting value, so always check every value against the number actually stated in the question.
- (b) £60 — £48 represents 100% − 20% = 80% of the original price. 1% = £48 ÷ 80 = £0.60, so 100% = £0.60 × 100 = £60.
- (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.
- (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)
- (b) No — rate fell by 3.7 thousand/month — Each tangent gradient is the instantaneous growth rate, in thousand subscribers per month. To compare them, subtract the later rate from the earlier one: 4.8 − 1.1 = 3.7. Since 1.1 is less than 4.8, the growth rate has fallen by 3.7 thousand subscribers per month, so the manager is wrong — the app is growing more slowly at 18 months, not faster. Subtracting the other way round and calling the result a rise, 'rate rose by 3.7 thousand/month', gets the direction backwards: the later gradient is the smaller of the two. Adding the two gradients, 4.8 + 1.1 = 5.9, and calling this a combined rate that shows speeding up, is the wrong operation for comparing two rates. Treating the difference 3.7 as a total number of subscribers lost, rather than a rate in thousands per month, confuses a rate with a count. Always subtract the two rates in a sensible order and keep the units in thousands per month.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 10 — First find the height at each end of the chord. At t = 1, h = 30 × 1 − 5 × 1² = 30 − 5 = 25. At t = 3, h = 30 × 3 − 5 × 3² = 90 − 45 = 45. The gradient of the chord estimates the instantaneous rate at the midpoint t = 2: 45 − 25 = 20, then 20 ÷ (3 − 1) = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 m/s. Finding the change in height but forgetting to divide by the change in time gives 20, which is a distance, not a rate. Averaging the two heights instead of finding the difference gives (25 + 45) ÷ 2 = 70 ÷ 2 = 35. Subtracting in the wrong order, 25 − 45 = −20, then −20 ÷ 2 = −10, gives the correct size with the sign flipped — the rocket is rising, not falling, at t = 2 seconds, so a negative rate cannot be right here.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.