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
- (b) t = 5 and t = 7 (closest, evenly spaced) — To estimate the instantaneous rate of change at t = 6, use the chord centred on t = 6 with the closest readings on either side, t = 5 and t = 7. The gradient of this chord is 15.4 − 17.5 = −2.1, then −2.1 ÷ 2 = −1.05 cm per minute. The interval t = 3 to t = 9 is also centred on t = 6 but is wider: 13.4 − 18.7 = −5.3, then −5.3 ÷ 6 ≈ −0.88 cm per minute — this brings in more of the curve's own change in steepness, so it is a worse estimate of the rate at the single instant t = 6. Using t = 6 and t = 7 only gives 15.4 − 16.6 = −1.2, then −1.2 ÷ 1 = −1.2 cm per minute, but this is not centred on t = 6 — it estimates the rate over (6, 7), not at t = 6 itself. Using t = 0 and t = 6 gives 16.6 − 20.0 = −3.4, then −3.4 ÷ 6 ≈ −0.57 cm per minute, the average rate for the whole first six minutes, not the rate at the instant t = 6. Always choose the chord that brackets the point as closely as possible.
- (c) The tangent is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. — Method: at any point where a distance–time graph is momentarily neither increasing nor decreasing, the tangent to the graph at that point is horizontal, and the gradient of a horizontal line is 0 — this is the instantaneous rate of change at that instant. Working: since the hiker's distance is neither increasing nor decreasing at t = 45 minutes, the tangent there is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. Claiming the tangent is vertical, with an undefined gradient, is the opposite of what the stem says: a vertical tangent would mean the distance was changing infinitely fast at that instant, not that it had stopped changing, and on a distance–time graph it cannot happen at all. Reading the gradient as 45, the time value given in the stem, mistakes a value used to LOCATE the point for the rate of change AT that point. Claiming the gradient cannot be found without also knowing the distance at t = 45 minutes overlooks that 'momentarily stationary' already tells you the rate of change directly, without needing to read any distance value at all. Whenever a stem tells you a quantity is momentarily not changing, that is telling you the instantaneous rate of change directly — it is 0, and no further data is needed to find it.
- (c) Average rate, t = 2 to 6, is −2°C/min — First find the temperature at each end of the interval. At t = 2, T = 80 − 6 × 2 + 0.5 × 2² = 80 − 12 + 2 = 70. At t = 6, T = 80 − 6 × 6 + 0.5 × 6² = 80 − 36 + 18 = 62. The average rate of change over the interval is the change in T divided by the change in t: 62 − 70 = −8, then −8 ÷ 4 = −2°C per minute, so the statement about the average rate is correct. The instantaneous rate at t = 6 is not −2: completing the square gives T = 0.5(t − 6)² + 62, so t = 6 is the turning point of the curve, where the tangent is horizontal and the rate is 0°C per minute — the reaction has stopped cooling by then. The instantaneous rate at t = 2 is not −2 either: a short chord centred on t = 2, from t = 1.9 (T = 70.405) to t = 2.1 (T = 69.605), gives −0.8 ÷ 0.2 = −4°C per minute, so the reaction is cooling twice as fast at the start of the interval as the average over it. Saying the temperature falls 2°C in total confuses the RATE, −2°C per minute, with a TOTAL drop, which is 70 − 62 = 8°C over the four minutes. Always check whether a figure is a rate, per minute, or a total change.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 1 : 1.875 — To write a ratio in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by the first part, 8: 8 ÷ 8 = 1 and 15 ÷ 8 = 1.875, giving 1 : 1.875. Giving 1 : 0.53 divides the wrong way round, computing 8 ÷ 15 instead of 15 ÷ 8. Giving 1.875 : 1 has the two parts of the answer swapped, which is the form n : 1, not 1 : n. Giving 8 : 1.875 divides only the second part by 8, so the first part is still 8, not 1.
- (d) 48 — Find the rate first: 18 ÷ 3 = 6 bottles per minute. Then apply it to the new time: 6 × 8 = 48 bottles. Working out 18 + (8 − 3) = 23 adds the extra 5 minutes onto the number of bottles instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 18 × 8 = 144 multiplies the given number of bottles by the new number of minutes without finding the rate first. Writing 18 keeps the count the same, not realising it must change with the time. In 8 minutes the machine fills 48 bottles.
- (b) €230.00 — Multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate: 200 × 1.15 = 230, so £200 = €230.00. Working out 200 + 1.15 = 201.15 treats the exchange rate as an amount to add rather than a multiplier. Working out 200 × 0.15 = 30 finds only the extra amount earned for every pound and forgets to add it back to the original £200. Working out 200 × 11.5 = 2300.00 misplaces the decimal point in the exchange rate, multiplying by 11.5 instead of 1.15. £200 converts to €230.00.
- (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.
- (a) 20 litres per minute — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, and its units are the vertical unit for each one of the horizontal unit. Working: from (2, 50) to (6, 130) the volume changes by 130 − 50 = 80 litres and the time changes by 6 − 2 = 4 minutes, so the gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20, measured in litres for each minute. Answer: 20 litres per minute. The distractors: 25 litres per minute comes from using one point on its own, 50 ÷ 2, which assumes the line starts at the origin when the tank already held 50 litres at 2 minutes; 0.05 litres per minute comes from dividing the change in time by the change in volume, 4 ÷ 80, which gives the time for each litre but is then labelled as litres for each minute; 20 minutes for each litre has the right value with the units the wrong way round, and a tank that needed 20 minutes to gain a single litre would be filling far more slowly than this one.
- (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.
- (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) £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.
- (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).
- (c) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.