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) 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.
- (c) 14 litres — Method: find the amount of fuel used per km first, then use it to find the fuel needed for 175 km. Working: 24 ÷ 300 = 0.08 litres per km, and 0.08 × 175 = 14 litres. So 14 litres are needed. Distractor 24 litres comes from assuming the same amount of fuel is used no matter the distance, without scaling. Distractor 21 litres comes from misreading the original distance as 200 km instead of 300 km. Distractor 1.4 litres comes from a decimal-point slip, giving an answer ten times too small.
- (d) £3.60 per component — The gradient of a cost-against-components graph has units of pounds per component, since cost is measured in pounds and the horizontal axis counts components. So 3.60 means it costs an extra £3.60 to produce one more component at that point. Calling it '£3.60 total cost' confuses the gradient, a rate, with the y-value on the graph, which is the total cost itself. Giving it as 3.60 components per pound swaps which axis is on top, giving the units of the reciprocal gradient, not the gradient itself. Turning 3.60 into a percentage invents a unit that has no basis in the graph's axes — a gradient here is a number of pounds, not a percentage. Always build the gradient's units from the two axes' own units, in the order y-axis over x-axis.
- (c) 1.2 — Add the parts of the ratio: 6 + 1 = 7. Divide the total amount by the number of parts: 8.4 ÷ 7 = 1.2 litres, which is the value of one part and also the amount of syrup, since syrup is 1 part. (7.2 litres is the amount of water, using 6 parts instead of 1. 1.4 comes from dividing 8.4 by 6 — the water's part of the ratio — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7. 0.84 comes from dividing 8.4 by 10 instead of by 7.)
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 88 km/h — Multiply the speed in mph by the conversion factor: 55 × 1.6 = 88 km/h. Dividing by 1.6 instead of multiplying gives 55 ÷ 1.6 ≈ 34.38 km/h, going the wrong way between the units. Adding the conversion factor instead of multiplying gives 55 + 1.6 = 56.6 km/h, treating the factor as an amount rather than a multiplier. Multiplying by 0.6 instead of 1.6 gives 55 × 0.6 = 33 km/h, using only part of the conversion factor. 55 mph is equal to 88 km/h.
- (d) Profit is decreasing by £10 per £1 rise in price. — The gradient of a tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price, found from the change in profit divided by the change in price between two points on the tangent. Here the tangent passes through (12, 540) and (18, 480), so the change in profit is 480 − 540 = −60 and the change in price is 18 − 12 = 6. The gradient is −60 ÷ 6 = −10. A negative gradient means profit is decreasing as price increases, so profit is decreasing at an instantaneous rate of £10 for every £1 rise in price. Subtracting the profits in the wrong order, 540 − 480 = 60, and dividing by the same change in price, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, gives a positive value and the wrong direction — profit is not increasing at £15. Stopping after finding only the change in profit, 480 − 540 = −60, without dividing by the change in price, is not a rate at all. Reading off the change in price, 6, and calling it the rate gives £6 per £1 rise in price, but 6 is only the width of the price interval — it is not a change in profit at all, and profit falls across that interval, so the direction is wrong too. The instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price at £15 is a decrease of £10 per £1 rise in price.
- (c) £338.69 — To increase by 12% each year, multiply by 1.12 twice. £270 × 1.12 × 1.12 = £338.688, which rounds to £338.69 (nearest penny, since the third decimal place is 8). £334.80 comes from treating the two 12% increases as a single flat 24% increase applied once instead of compounding: £270 × 1.24 = £334.80. £302.40 comes from applying the 12% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £270 × 1.12 = £302.40. £338.68 comes from rounding £338.688 down to the nearest penny instead of up.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (c) 90 cm² — The perimeter ratio is 30 : 45, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger frame is 1.5 times the perimeter of the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of this length scale factor: 1.5² = 2.25. 40 × 2.25 = 90, so the larger frame has an area of 90 cm². Giving 60 cm² uses the scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (40 × 1.5 = 60). Giving 135 cm² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if area scaled like a volume (40 × 3.375 = 135). Giving 2.25 cm² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller frame's area of 40 cm².
- (d) 120 g — Mass = density × volume, so 0.8 × 150 = 120 g. Working out 150 ÷ 0.8 = 187.5 divides by the density instead of multiplying, the wrong way round for finding a mass. Working out 150 × 8 = 1200 misplaces the decimal point in the density, treating 0.8 g/cm³ as 8 g/cm³. Working out 150 − 0.8 = 149.2 simply subtracts the density from the volume, which does not give a mass. The piece of wood has a mass of 120 g.
- (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.
- (b) −3 — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, with both changes taken in the same direction along the line. Working: going from (1, 20) to (5, 8) the change in y is 8 − 20 = −12 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4, so the gradient is −12 ÷ 4 = −3. Answer: −3, and the negative sign is expected because the line falls from left to right. The distractors: 3 comes from subtracting the smaller y from the larger, 20 − 8 = 12, while still taking the x values from left to right, which loses the minus sign that says the line falls; −12 is the change in y left undivided by the change in x of 4; −1/3 comes from dividing the change in x by the change in y, 4 ÷ (−12), turning the gradient upside down.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.