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) 20 km/h — Method: average speed = total distance ÷ total time, with the time written in hours. Working: 1 hour 30 minutes = 1.5 hours, and 30 ÷ 1.5 = 20. Answer: 20 km/h. The distractors: 45 km/h comes from multiplying 30 by 1.5 instead of dividing; 15 km/h comes from dividing by 2, as if the ride had taken 2 hours; 30 km/h comes from dividing by the whole hour only and ignoring the extra 30 minutes.
- (d) 8/5 — Two masses can only be compared once they are in the same unit. Since 1 kg is 1000 g, the recipe needs 1200 g. The recipe's mass is being written as a fraction of Dan's mass, so 1200 goes on the top and 750 on the bottom, giving 1200/750. The highest common factor of the two is 150: 1200 ÷ 150 = 8 and 750 ÷ 150 = 5. The fraction is 8/5, which is greater than 1 because the recipe needs more flour than Dan has.
- (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.
- (d) 35 — Method: in direct proportion the ratio y : x is the same for every pair, so find the constant and substitute the new value of x. Working: k = 20 ÷ 8 = 2.5, so y = 2.5x; when x = 14, y = 2.5 × 14 = 35. Answer: 35. The distractors: 26 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 6, so 6 is added to y — which would keep the difference constant rather than the ratio; 28 comes from rounding the constant 2.5 down to 2 and working out 2 × 14, which loses the half in the constant; 5.6 comes from using the constant upside down, 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4, and working out 0.4 × 14.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 4 — Method: find the length scale factor by taking the cube root of the volume scale factor, then square it to get the area scale factor. Working: 8 = 2³, so the length scale factor is 2, and the area scale factor is 2² = 4. Answer: 4. 8 comes from using the volume scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor. 64 comes from squaring the volume scale factor, 8² = 64, instead of first taking its cube root. 2 comes from correctly finding the length scale factor but then forgetting to square it.
- (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.
- (c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.
- (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) Car A, 50 km/h — Method: speed = distance ÷ time for each car, then compare. Working: Car A = 150 ÷ 3 = 50 km/h. Car B = 180 ÷ 4 = 45 km/h. Since 50 > 45, Car A is faster, travelling at 50 km/h. Wrong options: Car B, 45 km/h correctly finds Car B's speed but wrongly names the slower car as faster; Car A, 45 km/h picks the correct car but uses Car B's speed by mistake; Car B, 50 km/h picks the wrong car but uses Car A's correct speed value.
- (d) 2748 — A 7% increase each year means the value becomes 100% + 7% = 107% of the previous year's value, and 107% = 1.07, so the multiplier is 1.07. Multiply by 1.07 for each of the 2 years: 2400 × 1.07 × 1.07 = 2747.76, which rounds to 2748. (2736 comes from using simple growth instead of compound: 2400 + 2 × (2400 × 0.07) = 2736. 2568 is the population after only 1 year, 2400 × 1.07, forgetting the second year's growth. 2747 comes from rounding 2747.76 down instead of up to the nearest whole number.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.