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) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
- (c) C = 1.5n — Method: a fixed ratio between C and n means C is always the same multiple of n, and that multiple is the cost of one bottle. Working: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.5, 7.50 ÷ 5 = 1.5 and 12.00 ÷ 8 = 1.5, so every bottle costs £1.50 and C = 1.5n. Answer: C = 1.5n. The distractors: C = n + 1 comes from subtracting on the first row, 3 − 2 = 1, and adding that difference instead of multiplying; it fits the first row and fails the other two, which is why three rows are given; C = 3n reads the £3.00 as the price of one bottle when it is the price of two; C = n/1.5 divides the number of bottles by the price of one bottle, which works out how many bottles a pound buys instead of what n bottles cost.
- (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) 36 — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 126 ÷ 3.5 = 36 N/m². (0.03 comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area, the wrong way round. 129.5 comes from adding 126 and 3.5 instead of dividing. 441 comes from multiplying 126 by 3.5 instead of dividing.)
- (d) Faster at t = 8s — still accelerating — The gradient of a tangent on a distance-time graph is the instantaneous speed, in m/s. At t = 2 seconds the speed is 6 m/s; at t = 8 seconds it is 9.5 m/s, which is faster, so the sprinter is still accelerating between these two times. Saying the sprinter is slower at t = 8s reverses the comparison — 9.5 is greater than 6, not less. Writing 9.5 − 6 = 3.5 and calling this 'metres further covered' turns the difference of two speeds into a distance, which the units do not support: a difference of two speeds is itself a speed, not a distance. Taking 9.5 m/s, the larger of the two instantaneous speeds, as the average speed for the whole race confuses a speed at one instant with an average over the whole distance, which would need the total distance and total time, not two tangent gradients.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
- (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) 70 cm — Method: convert the real length to centimetres, then divide by the scale factor. Working: 84 m = 8400 cm. 8400 ÷ 120 = 70 cm. Wrong options: 0.7 cm comes from dividing 84 by 120 without converting metres to centimetres; 1,008,000 cm comes from multiplying instead of dividing (8400 × 120); 7 cm comes from converting 84 m to 840 cm (using ×10 instead of ×100) before dividing.
- (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.
- (c) £7590 — Apply interest, then subtract the payment, once for each year. Year 1: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400, then 8400 − 600 = 7800. Year 2: 7800 × 1.05 = 8190, then 8190 − 600 = 7590, so £7590 remains after 2 years. Forgetting the payments altogether and only compounding the interest gives 8000 × 1.05 = 8400, then 8400 × 1.05 = 8820 — this ignores that £600 leaves the fund every year. Subtracting the £600 BEFORE adding interest each year, instead of after, gives (8000 − 600) × 1.05 = 7770, then (7770 − 600) × 1.05 = 7528.50, which changes the order the two operations happen in and so changes the amount that earns interest each year. Subtracting the two payments as one lump sum of £1200 at the very end, from the no-withdrawal total 8820 − 1200 = 7620, ignores that the first £600 withdrawal also stops earning interest during the second year. Always apply interest, then the withdrawal, in that order, once for every single year.
- (b) They are in inverse proportion, because x × y = 60 for both pairs. — Testing inverse proportion means checking that x × y is the same for every pair: 4 × 15 = 60 and 6 × 10 = 60, so the quantities are in inverse proportion. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because y ÷ x differs uses the test for direct proportion, and finding that it differs tells us nothing about inverse proportion. Saying x × y = 40 for both pairs is an arithmetic slip: 4 × 15 = 60, not 40.
- (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.
- (b) 1500 — The rate is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5 litres per minute. Converting to cm³: 1.5 × 1000 = 1500 cm³ per minute. Getting 3000 comes from converting 3 litres to cm³ first (3000 cm³) and forgetting to divide by the 2 minutes. Getting 750 comes from dividing by the 2 minutes a second time after converting (1500 ÷ 2). Getting 2000 comes from converting the 2 minutes as if it were litres (2 × 1000) instead of using the correct rate of 1.5 litres per minute.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.