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
- (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) 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.
- (b) 25 m/s — Convert km/h to m/s by multiplying by 1000 (km to m) and dividing by 3600 (hours to seconds): 90 × 1000 ÷ 3600 = 25 m/s. Working out 90 ÷ 60 = 1.5 converts using 60, as if going from hours to minutes rather than to seconds. Working out 90 × 3.6 = 324 multiplies by 3.6 instead of dividing by it, going the wrong way between the units. Working out 90 × 1000 = 90000 converts kilometres to metres but forgets to convert hours to seconds at all. The train's speed is 25 m/s.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 7/3 — Put the kettle's energy over the toaster's energy: 2.1/0.9. Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 21/9. Divide both by their highest common factor, 3: 21÷3 = 7, 9÷3 = 3, giving 7/3. (3/7 comes from writing the energy values the wrong way round. 4/3 comes from finding the difference, 2.1 − 0.9 = 1.2 kWh, and writing it as a fraction of the toaster's energy, 1.2/0.9. 7/10 comes from comparing the kettle's energy to the total energy used by both appliances, 2.1/3.0.)
- (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) 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.
- (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) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
- (a) 2 : 3 — Simplify the volume ratio first: 64 : 216 divides by 8 to give 8 : 27. Volumes scale with the cube of the height ratio, so take the cube root of each part: the cube root of 8 is 2, and the cube root of 27 is 3, giving a height ratio of 2 : 3. Giving 3 : 2 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 8 : 27 is the simplified volume ratio, without cube-rooting it. Giving 64 : 216 is the volume ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (d) Gradient = acceleration; area = distance travelled. — Method: on a speed–time graph, the gradient of the graph at an instant is the rate of change of speed with time, which is acceleration; the area between the graph and the time-axis over an interval is the total distance covered in that interval, because it accumulates speed × time. Working: gradient = acceleration and area = distance travelled is the correct pairing. Swapping the two quantities completely, gradient = distance travelled and area = acceleration, is the reverse of what each actually measures. Keeping gradient = acceleration correct but then also claiming area = acceleration too is wrong because the area is a different physical quantity, distance, not a second way of finding the same rate. Claiming the gradient itself gives the speed confuses the RATE OF CHANGE of the plotted quantity with the plotted quantity itself — the gradient is how fast the speed is changing, not the speed. On any rate graph, the gradient of the graph is always the RATE at that instant, and the area under the graph is always the TOTAL AMOUNT accumulated — keep straight which of the two questions each one answers.
- (c) 70 cm — Method: convert the real length to centimetres, then divide by the scale factor. Working: 84 m = 8400 cm. 8400 ÷ 120 = 70 cm. Wrong options: 0.7 cm comes from dividing 84 by 120 without converting metres to centimetres; 1,008,000 cm comes from multiplying instead of dividing (8400 × 120); 7 cm comes from converting 84 m to 840 cm (using ×10 instead of ×100) before dividing.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.