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) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
- (c) 3 hours — Method: inverse proportion means speed × time is constant for the journey, so find that constant and divide it by the new speed. Working: 60 × 2 = 120, which is the distance in kilometres; at 40 km/h the time is 120 ÷ 40 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 1.5 hours is the ratio of the speeds, 60 ÷ 40, given as a time instead of being used to scale the original 2 hours; 1 hour 20 minutes comes from treating time as directly proportional to speed, 2 × 40 ÷ 60, which has the slower train arriving sooner; 2 hours comes from finding the constant 120 and then dividing it by the original 60 km/h again, so the time never changes.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 36 — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 126 ÷ 3.5 = 36 N/m². (0.03 comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area, the wrong way round. 129.5 comes from adding 126 and 3.5 instead of dividing. 441 comes from multiplying 126 by 3.5 instead of dividing.)
- (c) £2743.60 — Each year the balance is multiplied by 1.03. After the first year: 4000 × 1.03 = 4120. After the second year: 4120 × 1.03 = 4243.60, so that is what Leah takes out. She then spends £1500 of it, which leaves 4243.60 − 1500 = 2743.60. She has £2743.60 left.
- (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).
- (c) 1.25 cm — Method: find the real length using the first map's scale, then use the second map's scale to find its drawn length. Working: real length = 5 × 20 000 = 100 000 cm. On the second map: 100 000 ÷ 80 000 = 1.25 cm. Wrong options: 20 cm comes from inverting the ratio of the two scales (5 × 80 000 ÷ 20 000); 5 cm comes from wrongly assuming the length looks the same on both maps; 12.5 cm comes from dropping a zero from the second scale factor and dividing by 8 000 instead of 80 000 (100 000 ÷ 8 000).
- (a) 18/25 — First find the new number of rose bushes: 90 × 1.2 = 108 (a 20% increase multiplies by 1.2). Then write 108 over 150 and divide top and bottom by 6 to get 18/25. Choosing 3/5 comes from using the original 90 rose bushes without applying the 20% increase (90/150 = 3/5). Choosing 25/18 comes from writing the number of lavender bushes over the new number of rose bushes, the wrong way round. Choosing 3/25 comes from multiplying 90 by 0.2 instead of 1.2, finding only the increase (18) rather than the new total, then writing 18/150 = 3/25.
- (b) 20 km — The scale 2 cm : 5 km means each 1 cm on the map represents 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5 km in real life. The footpath is 8 cm on the map, so its real length is 8 × 2.5 = 20 km. 40 km comes from multiplying 8 by 5 directly, ignoring that the scale's '2 cm' has to be divided out first: 8 × 5 = 40. 3.2 km comes from dividing 8 by 2.5 instead of multiplying: 8 ÷ 2.5 = 3.2. 5 km comes from multiplying 2.5 by the scale's '2' instead of by the footpath's 8 cm: 2.5 × 2 = 5.
- (c) 7800 kg/m³ — Method: build the conversion factor from the two unit changes separately — one for the mass, one for the volume. Working: 1 kg = 1000 g, so the mass figure is divided by 1000; 1 m = 100 cm, so 1 m³ = 100 × 100 × 100 = 1000000 cm³ and the volume figure is multiplied by 1000000. The density figure is therefore multiplied by 1000000 ÷ 1000 = 1000, giving 7.8 × 1000 = 7800. So the density of the metal is 7800 kg/m³. Distractor 780 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 100 instead of 1000. Distractor 78000 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 10000, an extra zero. Distractor 7.8 kg/m³ comes from not converting the units at all.
- (d) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
- (b) £16 — Since cost is proportional to the square root of diameter, C = k√d. Using d = 9, C = 12: √9 = 3, so 12 = k × 3, giving k = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. The equation is C = 4√d. When d = 16: √16 = 4, so C = 4 × 4 = 16. Halving the new diameter instead of taking its square root gives 16 ÷ 2 = 8, and then C = 4 × 8 = 32 — halving a number is not the same as taking its square root, as √16 = 4, not 8. Multiplying k by the diameter itself instead of by its square root gives C = 4 × 16 = 64, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √16 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 4, not the cost. The cost of manufacturing a lens of diameter 16 mm is £16.
- (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.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.