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) The population is growing at 2500 people per year. — The gradient of a tangent to a graph gives the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity on the vertical axis with respect to the quantity on the horizontal axis, at that exact point — not the total change and not an average. Here the vertical axis is population in thousands and the horizontal axis is time in years, so the gradient is measured in thousands of people per year. A gradient of 2.5 means the population is growing at an instantaneous rate of 2.5 thousand people per year, and since P is measured in thousands, 2.5 × 1000 = 2500 people per year. This describes the rate of change at that instant, not the total increase over the 6 years and not an average population.
- (d) £4 — The gradient of the tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of cost with respect to the number of passengers, in pounds per passenger. The tangent passes through (16, 184) and (24, 216), so the change in cost is 216 − 184 = 32 and the change in passengers is 24 − 16 = 8. The gradient is 32 ÷ 8 = 4. Stopping after finding the change in cost, without dividing by the change in passengers, leaves 32, not a rate. Adding the two changes instead of dividing gives 32 + 8 = 40, which is not a rate either. Reading off only the change in passengers, 8, is not a rate at all — a rate needs the change in cost as well. The instantaneous rate is £4 per extra passenger.
- (b) 5 years — The recurrence P_{n+1} = 1.1P_n − 30 must be applied once per year, checking after each application whether the population has passed 460. Starting from P_0 = 400: 400 × 1.1 − 30 = 410, so P_1 = 410. Then 410 × 1.1 − 30 = 421, so P_2 = 421. Then 421 × 1.1 − 30 = 433.1, so P_3 = 433.1. Then 433.1 × 1.1 − 30 = 446.41, so P_4 = 446.41, which is still below 460. Then 446.41 × 1.1 − 30 = 461.051, so P_5 = 461.051, the first value above 460. The population first exceeds 460 after 5 complete years. Stopping at P_4 = 446.41 and reporting 4 years reports the last year the population was still below 460, not the first year it was above. Counting the starting value P_0 = 400 as a year of growth makes P_5 the sixth number in the list and gives 6 years, but P_0 is the population before any year has passed, so P_5 is reached after 5 years, not 6. Reading "exceed 460" as "exceed the starting population of 400" instead gives P_1 = 410, already above 400, and 1 year — but the threshold named in the question is 460, not the starting value, so always check every value against the number actually stated in the question.
- (a) 4 weeks — Apply the recurrence week by week. C_1 = 0.75 × 500 + 40 = 375 + 40 = 415. C_2 = 0.75 × 415 + 40 = 311.25 + 40 = 351.25. C_3 = 0.75 × 351.25 + 40 = 263.4375 + 40 = 303.4375. C_4 = 0.75 × 303.4375 + 40 = 227.578125 + 40 = 267.578125. C_3 = 303.4375 is still above 300, but C_4 = 267.58 has dropped below it, so the lake first becomes safe after 4 weeks. Taking 25% of the ORIGINAL 500 every week instead of 25% of the current amount, a flat 125 each time, gives 500 − 125 + 40 = 415, then 415 − 125 + 40 = 330, then 330 − 125 + 40 = 245, which crosses 300 a week too early and gives the wrong answer of 3 weeks. Continuing one extra step to C_5 = 0.75 × 267.578125 + 40 = 200.68 + 40 = 240.68 and calling it 5 weeks overshoots, since the concentration had already dropped below 300 at C_4. Forgetting the 40 units of run-off each week and only applying the decay gives C_1 = 0.75 × 500 = 375, then C_2 = 0.75 × 375 = 281.25 — this is already below 300 after only 2 weeks, because without the run-off the concentration falls much faster.
- (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.
- (c) 40 — Working out successive terms shows where the sequence is heading, but the terms themselves keep changing — the limit is the value where the sequence stops changing, so x_{n+1} = x_n = L there. Substituting into the rule: L = 0.5L + 20. Subtracting 0.5L from both sides: L − 0.5L = 20, so 0.5L = 20, and L = 20 ÷ 0.5 = 40. The individual terms are x_1 = 0.5 × 0 + 20 = 20, x_2 = 0.5 × 20 + 20 = 30 and x_3 = 0.5 × 30 + 20 = 35, getting closer to this value but not equal to it — 35 is only the third term, not the limit. Multiplying by 0.5 instead of dividing at the final step, 20 × 0.5 = 10, undoes the rearrangement rather than completing it, and gives a value smaller than terms the sequence has already passed. Writing the fixed-point equation with the wrong sign, L = 0.5L − 20, gives 0.5L = −20 and L = −40, which cannot be right since every term in the sequence is positive and increasing. The value the sequence is approaching is 40.
- (a) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
- (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) 28.8 km/h — Method: first change metres per second into metres per hour, then change metres into kilometres. Working: 8 × 3600 = 28800 metres per hour, then 28800 ÷ 1000 = 28.8 km/h. So the runner's speed is 28.8 km/h. Distractor 28800 km/h comes from stopping after the first step and forgetting to change metres into kilometres. Distractor 2.22 km/h comes from dividing by 3600 instead of multiplying, then multiplying by 1000. Distractor 2.88 km/h comes from using 360 instead of 3600 seconds in an hour, missing a zero.
- (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)
- (d) 120 g — Mass = density × volume, so 0.8 × 150 = 120 g. Working out 150 ÷ 0.8 = 187.5 divides by the density instead of multiplying, the wrong way round for finding a mass. Working out 150 × 8 = 1200 misplaces the decimal point in the density, treating 0.8 g/cm³ as 8 g/cm³. Working out 150 − 0.8 = 149.2 simply subtracts the density from the volume, which does not give a mass. The piece of wood has a mass of 120 g.
- (c) 1.2 — Add the parts of the ratio: 6 + 1 = 7. Divide the total amount by the number of parts: 8.4 ÷ 7 = 1.2 litres, which is the value of one part and also the amount of syrup, since syrup is 1 part. (7.2 litres is the amount of water, using 6 parts instead of 1. 1.4 comes from dividing 8.4 by 6 — the water's part of the ratio — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7. 0.84 comes from dividing 8.4 by 10 instead of by 7.)
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.