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) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
- (b) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
- (d) £6705 — After the first year: £6400 × 1.08 = £6912. After the second year: £6912 × 0.97 = £6704.64, which rounds to £6705 (nearest pound). £6720 comes from treating the +8% and −3% changes as a single net +5% change applied to the original amount instead of applying each change in turn: £6400 × 1.05 = £6720. £6912 comes from applying only the first year's growth and stopping there, without applying the second year's fall. £7104 comes from adding the two percentages together as +11% and applying that to the original amount instead of applying each change to the correct starting amount in turn: £6400 × 1.11 = £7104.
- (c) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
- (a) 40 m² — A scale of 1 : 10 is a length scale factor of 10 from model to real. Areas scale with the square of the length scale factor: 10² = 100. 0.4 × 100 = 40, so the real staircase covers 40 m². Giving 4 m² uses the length scale factor, 10, without squaring it (0.4 × 10 = 4). Giving 0.04 m² divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying by its square (0.4 ÷ 10 = 0.04). Giving 400 m² cubes the scale factor, 10³ = 1000, as if area scaled like a volume (0.4 × 1000 = 400).
- (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) 0.62 miles — The gradient of the line is the change in miles divided by the change in kilometres: 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62, so 1 kilometre converts to 0.62 miles. Dividing the wrong way round, 50 ÷ 31 = 1.612..., rounds to 1.61 miles — that finds how many kilometres are in 1 mile, not the reverse. Doubling the gradient, 1.24 miles, comes from using 62 ÷ 50 instead of 31 ÷ 50. Reading off the y-coordinate of the given point without dividing by the x-coordinate gives 31.00 miles, which is the number of miles for 50 kilometres, not for 1 kilometre.
- (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.)
- (c) 4 m/s — The average rate of change of distance with respect to time over an interval is the change in distance divided by the change in time — the gradient of the chord joining the two endpoints, not the gradient of any tangent inside the interval. From t = 3 to t = 8 the change in time is 8 − 3 = 5 and the change in distance is 32 − 12 = 20, so the average speed is 20 ÷ 5 = 4 m/s. Reporting the change in distance on its own, as 20 m/s, is not a speed: those 20 metres were covered over the whole 5 seconds, not in one second, so the 20 still has to be divided by the 5. The tangent's gradient of 3 m/s is the instantaneous speed at the single moment t = 6, not the average over the whole 5-second interval, so it must not be used here. Adding the change in distance and the change in time instead of dividing gives 20 + 5 = 25, which is not a speed. The average speed of the cyclist over the interval is 4 m/s.
- (c) Average rate, t = 2 to 6, is −2°C/min — First find the temperature at each end of the interval. At t = 2, T = 80 − 6 × 2 + 0.5 × 2² = 80 − 12 + 2 = 70. At t = 6, T = 80 − 6 × 6 + 0.5 × 6² = 80 − 36 + 18 = 62. The average rate of change over the interval is the change in T divided by the change in t: 62 − 70 = −8, then −8 ÷ 4 = −2°C per minute, so the statement about the average rate is correct. The instantaneous rate at t = 6 is not −2: completing the square gives T = 0.5(t − 6)² + 62, so t = 6 is the turning point of the curve, where the tangent is horizontal and the rate is 0°C per minute — the reaction has stopped cooling by then. The instantaneous rate at t = 2 is not −2 either: a short chord centred on t = 2, from t = 1.9 (T = 70.405) to t = 2.1 (T = 69.605), gives −0.8 ÷ 0.2 = −4°C per minute, so the reaction is cooling twice as fast at the start of the interval as the average over it. Saying the temperature falls 2°C in total confuses the RATE, −2°C per minute, with a TOTAL drop, which is 70 − 62 = 8°C over the four minutes. Always check whether a figure is a rate, per minute, or a total change.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
- (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.