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) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
- (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.
- (a) 24 N/m² — Pressure = force ÷ area. 68.4 ÷ 2.85 = 24 N/m². 194.94 N/m² comes from multiplying the force by the area instead of dividing (68.4 × 2.85). 65.55 N/m² comes from subtracting the area from the force (68.4 − 2.85) instead of dividing. 0.04 N/m² comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area (2.85 ÷ 68.4).
- (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) £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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 180 pages — The gradient is (9 − 24) ÷ (300 − 0) = −15 ÷ 300 = −0.05, so the cartridge uses 0.05 ml of ink per page. At p = 300 there are 9 ml left. The extra pages before the cartridge is empty is 9 ÷ 0.05 = 180 pages. Giving 9 as the answer confuses the millilitres of ink remaining with the number of pages remaining — they are different quantities with different units. Multiplying instead of dividing, 9 × 0.05 = 0.45, does not undo the rate correctly. Working out the total number of pages a full cartridge lasts, 24 ÷ 0.05 = 480 pages, answers how many pages the cartridge prints in total from full, not how many more pages it can print from the 300-page point.
- (a) 28.8 km/h — Method: first change metres per second into metres per hour, then change metres into kilometres. Working: 8 × 3600 = 28800 metres per hour, then 28800 ÷ 1000 = 28.8 km/h. So the runner's speed is 28.8 km/h. Distractor 28800 km/h comes from stopping after the first step and forgetting to change metres into kilometres. Distractor 2.22 km/h comes from dividing by 3600 instead of multiplying, then multiplying by 1000. Distractor 2.88 km/h comes from using 360 instead of 3600 seconds in an hour, missing a zero.
- (d) 90 cm — Method: scale each dimension by the scale factor, then find the perimeter. Working: model height = 240 ÷ 8 = 30 cm; model width = 120 ÷ 8 = 15 cm. Perimeter = 2 × (30 + 15) = 90 cm. Wrong options: 11.25 cm comes from squaring the scale factor as if finding an area (720 ÷ 64); 510 cm comes from scaling only one dimension and leaving the other at full size; 720 cm comes from finding the real perimeter (2 × (240 + 120)) but forgetting to scale it down at all.
- (c) 183 mg — Apply the decay, then add the new dose, once for each hour. Hour 1: 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 140 + 50 = 190. Hour 2: 0.7 × 190 = 133, then 133 + 50 = 183, so there is 183 mg after 2 hours. Forgetting the top-up dose and only applying the decay gives 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 0.7 × 140 = 98 — this ignores that a further 50 mg is given every hour. Adding the 50 mg BEFORE the decay is applied, instead of after, gives 0.7 × (200 + 50) = 175, then 0.7 × (175 + 50) = 157.5, which changes how much of the dose is eliminated in the same hour it is given. Multiplying by 0.3, the percentage ELIMINATED, instead of by 0.7, the percentage REMAINING, gives 0.3 × 200 + 50 = 110, then 0.3 × 110 + 50 = 83 — this mixes up the amount that leaves the bloodstream with the amount that stays in it. Always check whether a percentage describes what remains or what is removed before choosing the multiplier.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (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) £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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.