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
- (a) 15 cm — Take the square root of each part of the area ratio to find the length ratio: the square root of 4 is 2 and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a length ratio of 2 : 5. Multiply the smaller flag's height by the scale factor 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5: 6 × 2.5 = 15, so the larger flag is 15 cm tall. Giving 37.5 cm uses the area ratio, 25 ÷ 4 = 6.25, directly as the scale factor without square-rooting it first (6 × 6.25 = 37.5). Giving 2.4 cm applies the length ratio the wrong way round, scaling the smaller flag down by 2 ÷ 5 instead of up by 5 ÷ 2 (6 × 0.4 = 2.4). Giving 27 cm adds the difference between the two area-ratio numbers, 25 − 4 = 21, onto the smaller height instead of using it as a scale factor (6 + 21 = 27).
- (d) 26.6 — Find the constant multiplier — the mass of each metre of pipe: 12.6 ÷ 4.5 = 2.8, so the mass is always 2.8 times the length. For a length of 9.5 m, the mass is 9.5 × 2.8 = 26.6 kg. 17.6 comes from assuming an additive relationship instead of a multiplicative one — adding the increase in length (9.5 − 4.5 = 5) onto 12.6. 3.4 comes from using the multiplier the wrong way round (4.5 ÷ 12.6, rounded to 1 d.p.), then multiplying by 9.5. 12.6 comes from simply repeating the given mass, without applying the multiplier to the new length.
- (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).
- (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
- (d) Profit is decreasing by £10 per £1 rise in price. — The gradient of a tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price, found from the change in profit divided by the change in price between two points on the tangent. Here the tangent passes through (12, 540) and (18, 480), so the change in profit is 480 − 540 = −60 and the change in price is 18 − 12 = 6. The gradient is −60 ÷ 6 = −10. A negative gradient means profit is decreasing as price increases, so profit is decreasing at an instantaneous rate of £10 for every £1 rise in price. Subtracting the profits in the wrong order, 540 − 480 = 60, and dividing by the same change in price, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, gives a positive value and the wrong direction — profit is not increasing at £15. Stopping after finding only the change in profit, 480 − 540 = −60, without dividing by the change in price, is not a rate at all. Reading off the change in price, 6, and calling it the rate gives £6 per £1 rise in price, but 6 is only the width of the price interval — it is not a change in profit at all, and profit falls across that interval, so the direction is wrong too. The instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price at £15 is a decrease of £10 per £1 rise in price.
- (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.
- (c) 16 cm — Corresponding sides of similar triangles are all in the same ratio. Use the pair whose lengths are both known: the scale factor from triangle ABC to triangle PQR is 12 ÷ 6 = 2. Since QR corresponds to BC, multiply BC by that scale factor: 8 × 2 = 16, so QR = 16 cm.
- (a) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
- (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.
- (c) Firm B — £3 per mile against Firm A's £2 per mile — Firm A's gradient is (14 − 4) ÷ 5 = 2, so it charges £2 per mile. Firm B's gradient is (21 − 6) ÷ 5 = 3, so it charges £3 per mile. £3 is more than £2, so Firm B charges more per mile. Swapping the two firms' gradients gives the answer with Firm A at £3 and Firm B at £2, which has the labels the wrong way round. Dividing the change in miles by the change in cost, instead of the other way round, gives 5 ÷ 10 = £0.50 for Firm A and 5 ÷ 15 = £0.33 for Firm B and so names Firm A — that is the gradient upside down. And a positive fixed charge does not mean two firms charge the same rate: the rate is found from the gradient, not from whether the intercept is positive.
- (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.
- (d) £30.00 — The gradient is (130 − 70) ÷ (5 − 2) = 60 ÷ 3 = £20 per hour. Using the point (2, 70): the cost for 2 hours at £20 per hour is 20 × 2 = £40, so the call-out fee is 70 − 40 = £30. Taking the C-value of the first point as the fee without subtracting the hourly cost gives £70.00 — but that point already includes 2 hours of the hourly rate. Using the gradient itself as the fee, £20.00, confuses the rate per hour with the fixed charge. Subtracting 20 × 3 = 60 instead of 20 × 2 = 40 (using the wrong h-value) gives 70 − 60 = £10.00.
- (d) 3 : 5 — Simplify the area ratio: 18 : 50 divides by 2 to give 9 : 25. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so take the square root of each part: the square root of 9 is 3, and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a side length ratio of 3 : 5. Giving 5 : 3 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 9 : 25 is the simplified area ratio, without square-rooting it. Giving 18 : 50 is the area ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (b) £250 — Since cost is proportional to the cube of the radius, C = kr³. Using r = 3, C = 54: 3³ = 27, so 54 = k × 27, giving k = 54 ÷ 27 = 2. The equation is C = 2r³. When r = 5: 5³ = 125, so C = 2 × 125 = 250. Treating the relationship as proportional to r² instead of r³ gives k = 54 ÷ 9 = 6 and then C = 6 × 25 = 150, which models area scaling, not volume scaling. Treating it as proportional to r itself gives k = 54 ÷ 3 = 18 and then C = 18 × 5 = 90. Finding k correctly from the cube but then multiplying it by the radius instead of by the cube of the radius gives 2 × 5 = 10, which applies the right constant to the wrong power of r. The cost of a container of radius 5 cm is £250.
- (d) 3/2 — Work out the number of altos: 40% of 30 = 12. The rest are sopranos, so there are 30 − 12 = 18 sopranos. Form the fraction 18/12; both numbers share a factor of 6, so 18 ÷ 6 = 3 and 12 ÷ 6 = 2, giving 3/2. 2/3 comes from writing the fraction the wrong way round, as altos over sopranos (12/18). 3/5 comes from comparing the sopranos with the whole choir (18/30), instead of with the altos. 7/3 comes from miscalculating 30 − 12 as 28 instead of 18, then forming 28/12.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.