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) 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) −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.
- (d) 100 — Rearrange L = 0.6L + 40 by collecting the L terms on one side: L − 0.6L = 40, which gives 0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ 0.4 = 100. Subtracting the other way round, 0.6L − L = 40, gives −0.4L = 40, then L = 40 ÷ (−0.4) = −100 — a sign error that flips the answer negative even though a long-run value here must be positive. Ignoring the 0.6L term completely and solving L = 40 directly gives 40, which throws away the recurrence's own multiplier. Dividing 40 by 0.6 instead of by the correct coefficient 0.4 gives 40 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 66.7, a slip that comes from dividing by the coefficient of L on the RIGHT of the original equation rather than by what is left once the L terms are collected on one side. Always collect the L terms first, then divide by whatever coefficient of L remains.
- (d) 35 — Method: in direct proportion the ratio y : x is the same for every pair, so find the constant and substitute the new value of x. Working: k = 20 ÷ 8 = 2.5, so y = 2.5x; when x = 14, y = 2.5 × 14 = 35. Answer: 35. The distractors: 26 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 6, so 6 is added to y — which would keep the difference constant rather than the ratio; 28 comes from rounding the constant 2.5 down to 2 and working out 2 × 14, which loses the half in the constant; 5.6 comes from using the constant upside down, 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4, and working out 0.4 × 14.
- (c) 48 mm — Method: extension = k × force, where k = extension ÷ force. Working: k = 12 ÷ 5 = 2.4 mm per N. At 20 N: extension = 2.4 × 20 = 48 mm. Wrong options: 32 mm comes from adding the extension and force numbers instead of scaling (12 + 20); 3 mm comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (12 × 5 ÷ 20); 36 mm comes from using an incorrect scale factor of 3 between the forces instead of the correct factor of 4 (20 ÷ 5).
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 500 ml — Varnish covers a surface, so the amount needed scales with the area scale factor, which is the square of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5, so the area scale factor is 2.5 × 2.5 = 6.25. The varnish needed for the larger statue is 80 × 6.25 = 500 ml. Using 2.5 on its own would scale a length, not a surface.
- (d) 4 years — Apply the recurrence repeatedly. V_1 = 0.85 × 18000 = 15300. V_2 = 0.85 × 15300 = 13005. V_3 = 0.85 × 13005 = 11054.25. V_4 = 0.85 × 11054.25 = 9396.1125. V_3 = £11054.25 is still above £10000, but V_4 = £9396.11 has dropped below it, so the answer is 4 years. Stopping at V_3 and calling it '3 years' misreads £11054.25 as already below £10000, or comes from wrongly modelling the fall as a flat £2700 a year (15% of the original value each time, without compounding), which crosses £10000 a year too early. Continuing one extra step to V_5 = 0.85 × 9396.1125 = 7986.70 and calling it '5 years' overshoots, since the value had already dropped below £10000 at V_4. Doubling the percentage decrease to 30% by mistake gives V_1 = 0.7 × 18000 = 12600, then V_2 = 0.7 × 12600 = 8820, which is already below £10000 after only 2 years — the wrong rate crosses the threshold too fast.
- (b) 7.2 m — Multiply the model wingspan by the scale factor: 15 × 48 = 720. This is in centimetres, and 720 cm = 7.2 m, since 1 m = 100 cm. Giving 0.31 m divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (15 ÷ 48 ≈ 0.31), scaling the model down rather than the real aircraft up. Giving 72 m converts centimetres to metres by dividing by 10 instead of 100. Giving 0.72 m converts by dividing by 1000 instead of 100.
- (c) 54 — Method: y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 18 ÷ 5 = 3.6. At x = 15: y = 3.6 × 15 = 54. Wrong options: 28 comes from adding the change in x (10) onto y instead of scaling; 6 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 5 × 18 = 90, then y = 90 ÷ 15 = 6); 60 comes from rounding the constant up to 4 instead of using 3.6.
- (b) 24 km/h — First convert 45 minutes to hours: 45 ÷ 60 = 0.75 hours. Then divide the distance by the time: 18 ÷ 0.75 = 24 km/h. Reading 45 minutes as 0.45 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of dividing by 60) gives 18 ÷ 0.45 = 40 km/h. Working out 18 × 0.75 = 13.5 multiplies by the time instead of dividing. Working out 18 ÷ 45 = 0.4 divides by 45 without ever converting the minutes to hours. The cyclist's average speed is 24 km/h.
- (d) 3:8 — Convert 2 hours to minutes: 2 hours = 120 minutes. The ratio is 45 : 120. The highest common factor of 45 and 120 is 15. Divide both parts by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3 and 120 ÷ 15 = 8, giving 3 : 8. Leaving the hours unconverted gives 45 : 2 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 5 instead of 15 gives 9 : 24, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 3, hours to minutes instead of minutes to hours.
- (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
- (a) 4/5 — Method: find the June takings first, then write them over the May takings and cancel. Working: the takings fell by £900, so June is £4500 − £900 = £3600; the fraction is 3600/4500, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 900 gives 4/5. Answer: 4/5 of the May takings. The distractors: 1/5 comes from writing the fall over the May takings, 900/4500, which answers how far the takings dropped rather than what June's takings are compared with May's; 5/4 comes from writing May over June, 4500/3600, reversing the order the question asks for; 4/9 comes from writing June over the two months added together, 3600/8100, a part-to-whole fraction when the comparison asked for is with May alone.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.