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
- (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.
- (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) No — rate fell by 3.7 thousand/month — Each tangent gradient is the instantaneous growth rate, in thousand subscribers per month. To compare them, subtract the later rate from the earlier one: 4.8 − 1.1 = 3.7. Since 1.1 is less than 4.8, the growth rate has fallen by 3.7 thousand subscribers per month, so the manager is wrong — the app is growing more slowly at 18 months, not faster. Subtracting the other way round and calling the result a rise, 'rate rose by 3.7 thousand/month', gets the direction backwards: the later gradient is the smaller of the two. Adding the two gradients, 4.8 + 1.1 = 5.9, and calling this a combined rate that shows speeding up, is the wrong operation for comparing two rates. Treating the difference 3.7 as a total number of subscribers lost, rather than a rate in thousands per month, confuses a rate with a count. Always subtract the two rates in a sensible order and keep the units in thousands per month.
- (d) Faster at t = 8s — still accelerating — The gradient of a tangent on a distance-time graph is the instantaneous speed, in m/s. At t = 2 seconds the speed is 6 m/s; at t = 8 seconds it is 9.5 m/s, which is faster, so the sprinter is still accelerating between these two times. Saying the sprinter is slower at t = 8s reverses the comparison — 9.5 is greater than 6, not less. Writing 9.5 − 6 = 3.5 and calling this 'metres further covered' turns the difference of two speeds into a distance, which the units do not support: a difference of two speeds is itself a speed, not a distance. Taking 9.5 m/s, the larger of the two instantaneous speeds, as the average speed for the whole race confuses a speed at one instant with an average over the whole distance, which would need the total distance and total time, not two tangent gradients.
- (d) 0.40 m/min — To estimate an instantaneous rate of change at a point without a diagram, use the gradient of a chord joining two points close to it, one on each side. At t = 9: 0.02 × 81 = 1.62, so h = 1.62 + 0.5 = 2.12. At t = 11: 0.02 × 121 = 2.42, so h = 2.42 + 0.5 = 2.92. The change in height is 2.92 − 2.12 = 0.80 and the change in time is 11 − 9 = 2, so the gradient of the chord is 0.80 ÷ 2 = 0.40. Reporting the change in height, 0.80, on its own is not a rate, because it has not been divided by the 2 minutes over which it happened. Using the chord from t = 0 (where h = 0.5) to t = 11 instead gives 2.92 − 0.5 = 2.42, and 2.42 ÷ 11 = 0.22, which is the average gradient over the whole 11 minutes, not the instantaneous rate at t = 10. Substituting t = 10 into the formula gives 0.02 × 100 + 0.5 = 2.50, which is the height of the water at that moment, not the rate at which the height is rising. The estimated instantaneous rate of change at t = 10 is 0.40 m/min.
- (d) 135 m² — Method: for area, the scale factor must be squared. Working: area scale = 300² = 90 000. 15 × 90 000 = 1,350,000 cm². Convert to m² by dividing by 10 000: 1,350,000 ÷ 10 000 = 135 m². Wrong options: 0.45 m² comes from using the linear scale factor (×300) instead of squaring it; 1,350,000 m² comes from forgetting to convert the answer from cm² to m²; 13,500 m² comes from dividing by 100 instead of 10 000 when converting units.
- (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.
- (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) 36 — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 126 ÷ 3.5 = 36 N/m². (0.03 comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area, the wrong way round. 129.5 comes from adding 126 and 3.5 instead of dividing. 441 comes from multiplying 126 by 3.5 instead of 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.
- (b) Takings rise about £14 per 1°C rise — The gradient here is positive, so as temperature rises, takings rise too: near 22°C, takings increase by about £14 for every 1°C rise in temperature. Reversing this to say takings rise for every 1°C FALL gets the direction of the independent variable backwards — a positive gradient means both quantities move the same way. Saying 'takings are £14 at 22°C' confuses the gradient, a rate of change, with the y-value on the graph, which is the takings itself. Saying takings 'rose £14 in total' from 0°C to 22°C treats the gradient at a single point as if it applied over the whole range from 0°C to 22°C, when it only describes the instant at 22°C. Always keep a rate, a total change and a single reading separate.
- (d) £6705 — After the first year: £6400 × 1.08 = £6912. After the second year: £6912 × 0.97 = £6704.64, which rounds to £6705 (nearest pound). £6720 comes from treating the +8% and −3% changes as a single net +5% change applied to the original amount instead of applying each change in turn: £6400 × 1.05 = £6720. £6912 comes from applying only the first year's growth and stopping there, without applying the second year's fall. £7104 comes from adding the two percentages together as +11% and applying that to the original amount instead of applying each change to the correct starting amount in turn: £6400 × 1.11 = £7104.
- (c) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
- (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.)
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.