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) £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.
- (d) 48 — Find the rate first: 18 ÷ 3 = 6 bottles per minute. Then apply it to the new time: 6 × 8 = 48 bottles. Working out 18 + (8 − 3) = 23 adds the extra 5 minutes onto the number of bottles instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 18 × 8 = 144 multiplies the given number of bottles by the new number of minutes without finding the rate first. Writing 18 keeps the count the same, not realising it must change with the time. In 8 minutes the machine fills 48 bottles.
- (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.
- (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) £150 — Value after year 1: £800 × 0.75 = £600. Value after year 2: £600 × 0.75 = £450. The loss during the second year alone is £600 − £450 = £150. £450 comes from giving the value remaining after 2 years, not the amount lost during the second year. £200 comes from working out the loss during the first year instead of the second: £800 − £600 = £200. £350 comes from working out the total loss over both years instead of just the second year's loss: £800 − £450 = £350.
- (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
- (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) £5.40 — Method: work out the reduced price at each shop separately, then subtract the smaller from the larger. Working: Shop A's reduced price is £45 × 0.8 = £36, and Shop B's reduced price is £34 × 0.9 = £30.60, so the difference is £36 − £30.60 = £5.40. Answer: £5.40. £11.00 comes from comparing the two ORIGINAL prices, £45 − £34, without applying either shop's reduction at all. £1.60 comes from finding Shop A's reduced price correctly, £36, but then subtracting Shop B's original (unreduced) price of £34 instead of its reduced price. £66.60 comes from adding the two reduced prices together, £36 + £30.60, instead of subtracting them.
- (a) 7 — The average rate of change of y with respect to x over an interval is the change in y divided by the change in x between its two endpoints — the gradient of the chord joining them, not a rate at a single point. At x = 1: 2 × 1 = 2, so y = 1 + 2 = 3. At x = 4: 2 × 4 = 8, so y = 16 + 8 = 24. The change in y is 24 − 3 = 21 and the change in x is 4 − 1 = 3, so the average rate of change is 21 ÷ 3 = 7. Reporting the change in y, 21, on its own is not a rate of change, because it has not been divided by the 3 units of x over which it happened. Reporting 3 is not a rate either — 3 is the width of the interval, and also the value of y at x = 1, and neither of those measures how fast y is changing. Subtracting in the wrong order gives −21 ÷ 3 = −7, the wrong sign. The average rate of change of y with respect to x over the interval is 7.
- (b) 15 — Find the multiplier connecting y to x: 10 ÷ 4 = 2.5. Then apply it to the new value of x: 2.5 × 6 = 15. Working out 10 + (6 − 4) = 12 adds the change in x straight onto y instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 10 × 6 = 60 multiplies the given y-value by the new x-value directly, without finding the multiplier first. Writing 10 keeps y the same as before, not realising it must change with x. When x = 6, y = 15.
- (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) £85.47 — Value after 2 years: £1200 × 1.035 × 1.035 = £1285.47 (nearest penny). Interest earned = £1285.47 − £1200 = £85.47. £1285.47 is the total value of the account, not the interest earned on top of the original £1200. £84.00 comes from using simple interest instead of compound interest: £1200 × 0.035 × 2 = £84.00. £42.00 comes from working out only the first year's interest and stopping there: £1200 × 0.035 = £42.00.
- (a) 11:00 to 12:00 — Method: the instantaneous rate of change is zero at a turning point, where a rising trend becomes a falling trend; that lies within the first interval whose difference has changed sign from the interval before it. Working: the differences between consecutive readings are +3.4 °C (09:00 to 10:00), +1.7 °C (10:00 to 11:00), −0.3 °C (11:00 to 12:00) and −2.6 °C (12:00 to 13:00); the sign changes from positive to negative within 11:00 to 12:00, since the temperature is still rising up to 11:00 (20.1 °C, the highest recorded value) and has fallen by 12:00, so the instantaneous rate of change was zero somewhere within that interval. Choosing 09:00 to 10:00 picks out the interval with the largest positive difference, +3.4 °C, confusing the fastest rise with no change at all. Choosing 10:00 to 11:00 picks the last interval where the temperature was still rising, one interval too early, without checking that the very next interval turns negative. Choosing 12:00 to 13:00 picks out the interval with the largest-magnitude difference, −2.6 °C, the fastest fall, not where the change is zero. Zero instantaneous rate of change happens at a turning point, where the readings stop rising and start falling — find the FIRST interval whose difference has flipped sign from the one before it, not the biggest change or an interval where the old sign still held.
- (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) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.