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) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
- (c) £310 — Gradient = (210 − 130) ÷ (7 − 3) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20, so the monthly rate is £20. Using C = 20m + c with the point (3, 130): 130 = 60 + c, so c = 70. After 12 months: C = 20 × 12 + 70 = 240 + 70 = £310.
- (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
- (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.
- (b) 2, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte — Method: the gradient is the change in cost divided by the change in data, so it is the cost of each extra gigabyte; the value where the line meets the vertical axis is the charge before any data is used, which is a different quantity. Working: from (0, 10) to (8, 26) the cost rises by 26 − 10 = 16 pounds while the data rises by 8 − 0 = 8 gigabytes, so the gradient is 16 ÷ 8 = 2, meaning each extra gigabyte costs £2. Answer: 2, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte. The distractors: '10, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte' reads the intercept as the gradient, but 10 is what the tariff costs when no data at all has been used; '3.25, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte' comes from 26 ÷ 8, treating the line as though it passed through the origin when it starts at 10; '2, the fixed monthly charge in pounds' has the gradient right but describes the intercept, and the fixed charge on this tariff is £10.
- (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
- (b) 3 km — Method: multiply by the scale factor to get the real length in centimetres, then convert to kilometres. Working: 7.5 × 40 000 = 300 000 cm. 300 000 ÷ 100 000 = 3 km. Wrong options: 30 km comes from dividing by 10 000 instead of 100 000 when converting to kilometres; 3000 km comes from dividing by 100 instead of 100 000; 0.3 km comes from dividing by 1 000 000, an extra factor of 10 too many.
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (d) 218 — The rule x_{n+1} = 0.8x_n + 50 must be applied once for each step, using the result of the previous step every time — not the same starting value repeated. Starting from x_0 = 200: 0.8 × 200 = 160, so x_1 = 160 + 50 = 210. Then 0.8 × 210 = 168, so x_2 = 168 + 50 = 218. Stopping after one iteration leaves x_1 = 210, not x_2. Applying only the multiplier twice without adding 50 at each step uses 0.8² = 0.64, and 0.64 × 200 = 128, which drops the 50 completely. Adding 50 twice at the end instead of once per step, 128 + 100 = 228, still does not reproduce the actual recurrence, because the 50 added at the first step is itself multiplied by 0.8 at the second step. After two iterations, x_2 = 218.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.