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) £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) Car A, 50 km/h — Method: speed = distance ÷ time for each car, then compare. Working: Car A = 150 ÷ 3 = 50 km/h. Car B = 180 ÷ 4 = 45 km/h. Since 50 > 45, Car A is faster, travelling at 50 km/h. Wrong options: Car B, 45 km/h correctly finds Car B's speed but wrongly names the slower car as faster; Car A, 45 km/h picks the correct car but uses Car B's speed by mistake; Car B, 50 km/h picks the wrong car but uses Car A's correct speed value.
- (d) d ÷ t — Average speed = distance ÷ time, so the expression is d ÷ t. Writing t ÷ d inverts the formula, giving the time per kilometre instead of the speed. Writing d × t confuses speed with the formula for distance travelled (distance = speed × time) used the wrong way round. Writing d + t treats the relationship as additive instead of using division.
- (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.
- (a) 2.5 — Method: the factor by which the SIZE of one rate is greater than the size of another is found by dividing the larger magnitude by the smaller magnitude, ignoring their signs, so here the two magnitudes to work with are 8.75 and 3.5. Working: 8.75 ÷ 3.5 = 2.5, so the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 2 hours was 2.5 times the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 8 hours. Subtracting the two magnitudes, 8.75 − 3.5 = 5.25, gives how many thousand litres per hour greater one rate is than the other, not how many times greater — that is a difference, not a factor. Dividing the magnitudes the wrong way round, 3.5 ÷ 8.75 = 0.4, gives the factor by which the rate at t = 8 hours is smaller than at t = 2 hours, the reciprocal of what was asked for. Adding the magnitudes, 8.75 + 3.5 = 12.25, combines the two rates instead of comparing them, and does not answer a 'by what factor' question at all. A question that asks 'by what factor' is always answered by a division, in the order the question states it — check which rate is on top before you divide.
- (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (a) 12 m² — Real length = 8 × 50 = 400 cm = 4 m. Real width = 6 × 50 = 300 cm = 3 m. Real area = 4 × 3 = 12 m². Scaling the plan area (8 × 6 = 48 cm²) by 50 instead of by 50 squared gives 48 × 50 = 2400 cm² = 0.24 m² — area scales by the square of the length scale factor, not the scale factor itself. Multiplying the real dimensions in centimetres, 400 × 300 = 120 000, and calling the result 120 000 m² mistakes square centimetres for square metres. Converting only the length to metres and leaving the width as 6 (treating centimetres as metres), 4 × 6 = 24, gives 24 m², from a scaling that was never finished.
- (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.
- (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) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
- (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.
- (b) 1 : 500 — smallest real distance per cm (5 m), most detail — Method: compare what one centimetre represents in real life for each scale — the scale with the smallest real distance per cm shows the most detail. Working: for 1 : 500, 1 cm represents 500 cm (5 m); for 1 : 5000, 1 cm represents 50 m; for 1 : 50 000, 1 cm represents 500 m. Since 5 m is the smallest, 1 : 500 shows the most detail. Wrong options: '1 : 50 000 — covers the largest real area' wrongly assumes covering more area means more detail, when it is the opposite; '1 : 5000 — the middle value' wrongly assumes the middle scale is automatically the most balanced; '1 : 500 — covers the largest real distance' picks the correct scale but states an incorrect fact, since 1 : 500 actually covers the smallest real distance per cm.
- (a) 15.3 litres — Squash : water = 2 : 9, so water is 9 ÷ 2 = 4.5 times the amount of squash. Multiply: 3.4 × 4.5 = 15.3 litres. Using the multiplier upside down — treating squash as 9 ÷ 2 times water, when it is water that is 9 ÷ 2 times squash — and calculating 3.4 × (2 ÷ 9) gives about 0.8 litres (to 1 d.p.); that would be the squash needed for 3.4 litres of water, not the water needed for 3.4 litres of squash. Adding the difference between the ratio parts, 9 − 2 = 7, to the squash amount, 3.4 + 7 = 10.4, mistakes a ratio for a fixed extra amount. Using the total number of parts, 2 + 9 = 11, so the multiplier 11 ÷ 2 = 5.5, gives 3.4 × 5.5 = 18.7 litres — that finds the total mix from the squash amount, not the water alone.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.