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) £136 — 5% interest each year means the value becomes 100% + 5% = 105% of the previous year's value, and 105% = 1.05, so the multiplier is 1.05. Account A: £3200 × 1.05 × 1.05 = £3528. Account B (simple interest): £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.03) = £3392. The difference is £3528 − £3392 = £136. (£128 comes from working out Account A with simple interest too, instead of compound: £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.05) = £3520, then £3520 − £3392 = £128. £3528 is the value of Account A on its own, not the difference between the two accounts. £3392 is the value of Account B on its own, not the difference.)
- (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.
- (c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.
- (c) 27 : 64 — For similar solids, the ratio of volumes is the ratio of lengths cubed: 3³ : 4³ = 27 : 64. 3 : 4 comes from using the height ratio itself as the volume ratio, without cubing it at all. 9 : 16 comes from squaring each part instead of cubing (3² : 4²) — squaring is the rule for area, not volume. 27 : 4 comes from cubing only the first part of the ratio (3³ = 27), and leaving the second part uncubed.
- (c) 4 km — Since signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, S = k/d². Using d = 2, S = 20: 2² = 4, so 20 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 20 × 4 = 80. The equation is S = 80/d². When S = 5: d² = 80 ÷ 5 = 16, so d = 4 (taking the positive root, since distance cannot be negative). Stopping at d² = 16 without taking the square root leaves 16, the square of the distance, not the distance itself. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to distance itself, rather than to its square, gives k = 20 × 2 = 40 and then d = 40 ÷ 5 = 8, a different relationship. Multiplying by S instead of dividing by it when isolating d² gives d² = 80 × 5 = 400 and d = 20, the wrong operation. The distance at which the signal strength is 5 units is 4 km.
- (a) 675 ml — How much a jug holds is a volume, and volumes of similar solids scale with the cube of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, so the volume scale factor is 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 = 3.375. The larger jug holds 200 × 3.375 = 675 ml. Multiplying the scale factor by 3 instead of raising it to the power 3 is the mistake to guard against here.
- (c) −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, which on this graph is a number of litres for each mile, and a negative gradient means the vertical quantity is going down. Working: from (0, 45) to (150, 15) the fuel changes by 15 − 45 = −30 litres while the distance changes by 150 − 0 = 150 miles, so the gradient is −30 ÷ 150 = −0.2, which says the tank loses 0.2 litres for every mile driven. Answer: −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile. The distractors: '0.2, the car gains 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from subtracting the fuel values the other way round, 45 − 15 = 30, which drops the minus sign and reverses what the graph says; '−5, the car uses 5 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from dividing the change in distance by the change in fuel, 150 ÷ (−30), turning the gradient upside down; '−30, the car uses 30 litres of fuel for each mile' is the change in fuel on its own, never divided by the 150 miles travelled.
- (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) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
- (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.
- (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) 4.5 m² — The height ratio is 40 : 60, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger bookcase is 1.5 times as tall as the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor, so the wood needed scales by 1.5² = 2.25. 2 × 2.25 = 4.5, so the larger bookcase needs 4.5 m² of wood. Giving 3 m² uses the length scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (2 × 1.5 = 3). Giving 6.75 m² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if wood coverage were a volume (2 × 3.375 = 6.75). Giving 2.25 m² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller bookcase's wood area of 2 m².
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: this is inverse proportion — fewer taps means longer, not shorter — so the number of taps × the time taken stays constant. Working: 6 × 20 = 120, and with 3 taps the time is 120 ÷ 3 = 40 minutes. So 3 taps take 40 minutes. Distractor 10 minutes comes from treating it as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 20 × 3 ÷ 6. Distractor 30 minutes comes from halving the number of taps and adding half the original time, 20 + 10, instead of doubling the time. Distractor 17 minutes comes from subtracting the number of taps removed, 3, directly from the original time, 20.
- (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).
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.