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
- (a) 12 — Speed × time is constant: k = 20 × 15 = 300. At 25 pages per minute, the time is 300 ÷ 25 = 12 minutes. Getting 18.75 comes from treating speed and time as directly proportional and working out 15 × 25 ÷ 20 instead of dividing k by the new speed. Getting 20 comes from adding the increase in speed (25 − 20 = 5) onto the time (15 + 5 = 20). Getting 10 comes from subtracting that same increase in speed from the time (15 − 5 = 10).
- (d) £2.00 — Cost for Printer A = 200 × £0.04 = £8. Cost for Printer B = 200 × £0.05 = £10. Difference = £10 − £8 = £2.00.
- (d) 24.6 km/h — Average speed = distance ÷ time, with time in hours. 47 minutes = 47 ÷ 60 hours. 19.3 ÷ (47 ÷ 60) = 19.3 ÷ 47 × 60 = 24.638…, which rounds to 24.6 km/h (1 d.p.). 0.4 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 47 and treating the result as km/h directly, without converting the minutes to hours at all. 41.1 km/h comes from converting minutes to hours by dividing by 100 instead of 60 (19.3 ÷ 47 × 100). 0.3 km/h comes from dividing the distance by 60 instead of converting the 47 minutes to hours first.
- (c) 7.6 — Density = mass ÷ volume, so 356.5 ÷ 47 = 7.585..., which rounds to 7.6 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). (0.1 comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume, the wrong way round. 7.5 comes from rounding 7.585 down instead of up to 1 decimal place. 403.5 comes from adding the mass and the volume instead of dividing.)
- (a) 15 cm — Take the square root of each part of the area ratio to find the length ratio: the square root of 4 is 2 and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a length ratio of 2 : 5. Multiply the smaller flag's height by the scale factor 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5: 6 × 2.5 = 15, so the larger flag is 15 cm tall. Giving 37.5 cm uses the area ratio, 25 ÷ 4 = 6.25, directly as the scale factor without square-rooting it first (6 × 6.25 = 37.5). Giving 2.4 cm applies the length ratio the wrong way round, scaling the smaller flag down by 2 ÷ 5 instead of up by 5 ÷ 2 (6 × 0.4 = 2.4). Giving 27 cm adds the difference between the two area-ratio numbers, 25 − 4 = 21, onto the smaller height instead of using it as a scale factor (6 + 21 = 27).
- (c) 120 km/h — Method: for a fixed distance the average speed multiplied by the time is constant, and that constant is the distance, so divide the distance by the new time. Working: speed × time = 240, so in 2 hours the speed needed is 240 ÷ 2 = 120 km/h. Answer: 120 km/h. The distractors: 80 km/h is the average speed of the original journey, 240 ÷ 3, which answers for the 3-hour timing rather than the 2-hour one; 160 km/h comes from halving the 3 hours to 1.5 hours and working out 240 ÷ 1.5, instead of using the 2 hours the question gives; 480 km/h comes from multiplying the distance by the 2 hours rather than dividing by it.
- (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) 60 minutes — Method: for inverse proportion, printers × time is constant. Working: 6 × 40 = 240 (the constant). With 4 printers: 240 ÷ 4 = 60 minutes. Wrong options: 26.7 minutes comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion, scaling the time down as printers decrease (40 × 4 ÷ 6); 24 minutes comes from multiplying the two printer counts together instead of using the constant; 40 minutes comes from not adjusting the time at all for the change in printers.
- (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.
- (b) 1.00 litres — Total volume = 350 + 650 = 1000 cm³. Since 1000 cm³ = 1 litre, the smoothie is 1.00 litre. Using only the orange juice's 650 cm³ and converting that gives 0.65 litres, forgetting the mango juice entirely. Using only the mango juice's 350 cm³ gives 0.35 litres, forgetting the orange juice. Adding both volumes correctly to get 1000 cm³ but not converting to litres leaves the answer as 1000.00, which is the volume in the wrong unit.
- (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.
- (a) 1/9 — The ratio copper : tin is 9:1, so write tin over copper: 1/9. (9/1 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, copper over tin. 1/10 comes from comparing the tin to the total mass of the alloy, 1 part out of 10. 9/10 comes from comparing the copper to the total mass of the alloy, 9 parts out of 10.)
- (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
- (a) £14224 — Value after 2 years: £15000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £16224. Money left after buying the trailer: £16224 − £2000 = £14224. £14200 comes from treating the two 4% increases as a single flat 8% increase applied once instead of compounding: £15000 × 1.08 = £16200, and £16200 − £2000 = £14200. £13600 comes from applying the 4% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £15000 × 1.04 = £15600, and £15600 − £2000 = £13600. £18224 comes from adding the £2000 instead of subtracting it: £16224 + £2000 = £18224.
- (a) No — the cost per metre differs: £2.50/m vs £2.20/m — Method: divide cost by length for each pair and compare the unit rates. Working: £7.50 ÷ 3 = £2.50 per m; £11.00 ÷ 5 = £2.20 per m. The rates are different, so this is NOT direct proportion. Wrong options: 'Yes — both amounts increase' wrongly assumes any increasing relationship is proportional; 'No — because 5 m costs more in total' judges by total cost rather than the rate per metre, which is not valid reasoning on its own; 'Yes — the cost per metre is £2.50 in both cases' miscalculates the second rate (11.00 ÷ 5 is £2.20, not £2.50).
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.