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) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
- (c) 3 hours — Method: inverse proportion means speed × time is constant for the journey, so find that constant and divide it by the new speed. Working: 60 × 2 = 120, which is the distance in kilometres; at 40 km/h the time is 120 ÷ 40 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 1.5 hours is the ratio of the speeds, 60 ÷ 40, given as a time instead of being used to scale the original 2 hours; 1 hour 20 minutes comes from treating time as directly proportional to speed, 2 × 40 ÷ 60, which has the slower train arriving sooner; 2 hours comes from finding the constant 120 and then dividing it by the original 60 km/h again, so the time never changes.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 5/7 — The enlargement multiplier is 1.4, which as a fraction is 7/5. To reverse an enlargement, use the reciprocal of the multiplier: flip 7/5 to get 5/7. 7/5 comes from using the enlargement multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from treating the reverse as 'give back the extra amount', working out 1 − (1.4 − 1) = 0.6, instead of using the reciprocal. 5/2 comes from ignoring the whole number in 1.4 and inverting only the decimal part, 0.4, as if it were the whole multiplier.
- (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) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
- (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.
- (a) £7.80 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ number of hours. £58.50 ÷ 7.5 = £7.80 per hour. £438.75 comes from multiplying the pay by the hours instead of dividing (£58.50 × 7.5). £0.13 comes from dividing the hours by the pay instead of the pay by the hours (7.5 ÷ 58.50). £51.00 comes from subtracting the hours from the pay (£58.50 − 7.5) instead of dividing.
- (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.
- (d) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
- (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.
- (c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.
- (b) 0.22 km — The real one-way distance is 4.4 × 2500 = 11000 cm. Converting units: 11000 ÷ 100 = 110 m, and 110 ÷ 1000 = 0.11 km. Since the jogger runs there and back, the total distance is 0.11 × 2 = 0.22 km. 0.11 km comes from working out only the one-way distance and forgetting the return journey. 220 km comes from correctly doubling the one-way distance in metres, 110 × 2 = 220, but leaving it mislabelled as kilometres instead of converting metres to kilometres. 110 km comes from working out only the one-way distance in metres, 110, and mislabelling it as kilometres.
- (a) 2 : 3 — Simplify the volume ratio first: 64 : 216 divides by 8 to give 8 : 27. Volumes scale with the cube of the height ratio, so take the cube root of each part: the cube root of 8 is 2, and the cube root of 27 is 3, giving a height ratio of 2 : 3. Giving 3 : 2 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 8 : 27 is the simplified volume ratio, without cube-rooting it. Giving 64 : 216 is the volume ratio before it has even been simplified.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.