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) 1.375 — The multiplier is the new value divided by the original value: 176 000 ÷ 128 000 = 1.375. Choosing 0.375 comes from working out the increase as a fraction of the original (48 000 ÷ 128 000 = 0.375) and stopping there, without adding on the 1 whole that represents the original turnover. Choosing 0.727 comes from dividing the 2023 turnover by the 2024 turnover, the wrong way round (128 000 ÷ 176 000, rounded to 3 decimal places). Choosing 137.5 comes from writing the multiplier as a percentage — the 2024 turnover is 137.5% of the 2023 turnover — instead of converting it to the decimal multiplier 1.375.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 90 cm² — The perimeter ratio is 30 : 45, which simplifies to 2 : 3, so the larger frame is 1.5 times the perimeter of the smaller one. Areas scale with the square of this length scale factor: 1.5² = 2.25. 40 × 2.25 = 90, so the larger frame has an area of 90 cm². Giving 60 cm² uses the scale factor, 1.5, without squaring it (40 × 1.5 = 60). Giving 135 cm² cubes the scale factor, 1.5³ = 3.375, as if area scaled like a volume (40 × 3.375 = 135). Giving 2.25 cm² is the squared scale factor on its own, without multiplying by the smaller frame's area of 40 cm².
- (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
- (a) 15 cm — Take the square root of each part of the area ratio to find the length ratio: the square root of 4 is 2 and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a length ratio of 2 : 5. Multiply the smaller flag's height by the scale factor 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5: 6 × 2.5 = 15, so the larger flag is 15 cm tall. Giving 37.5 cm uses the area ratio, 25 ÷ 4 = 6.25, directly as the scale factor without square-rooting it first (6 × 6.25 = 37.5). Giving 2.4 cm applies the length ratio the wrong way round, scaling the smaller flag down by 2 ÷ 5 instead of up by 5 ÷ 2 (6 × 0.4 = 2.4). Giving 27 cm adds the difference between the two area-ratio numbers, 25 − 4 = 21, onto the smaller height instead of using it as a scale factor (6 + 21 = 27).
- (a) 20 litres per minute — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, and its units are the vertical unit for each one of the horizontal unit. Working: from (2, 50) to (6, 130) the volume changes by 130 − 50 = 80 litres and the time changes by 6 − 2 = 4 minutes, so the gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20, measured in litres for each minute. Answer: 20 litres per minute. The distractors: 25 litres per minute comes from using one point on its own, 50 ÷ 2, which assumes the line starts at the origin when the tank already held 50 litres at 2 minutes; 0.05 litres per minute comes from dividing the change in time by the change in volume, 4 ÷ 80, which gives the time for each litre but is then labelled as litres for each minute; 20 minutes for each litre has the right value with the units the wrong way round, and a tank that needed 20 minutes to gain a single litre would be filling far more slowly than this one.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 30 km — First convert 1 hour 15 minutes to hours: 15 minutes is a quarter of an hour, so the time is 1.25 hours. Then multiply by the speed: 24 × 1.25 = 30 km. Reading 15 minutes as 0.15 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 24 × 1.15 = 27.6 km. Working out 24 × 75 = 1800 multiplies by the number of minutes instead of converting to hours first. Working out 24 ÷ 1.25 = 19.2 divides by the time instead of multiplying. The cyclist travels 30 km.
- (a) S_{n+1} = 1.04S_n − 30 — Adding 4% interest multiplies the balance by 1 + 0.04 = 1.04. Withdrawing £30 afterwards subtracts a fixed 30, giving S_{n+1} = 1.04S_n − 30. Writing +30 instead of −30 mistakes a withdrawal for a deposit — the £30 leaves the account, so it must be subtracted. Writing 0.96 instead of 1.04 treats the 4% as a decrease rather than an increase, as if the interest were shrinking the balance instead of growing it. Writing 1.4 instead of 1.04 turns 4% into 40%, a common slip when converting a percentage to a multiplier — 4% as a decimal is 0.04, so the multiplier is 1.04, not 1.4. Always convert the percentage to a decimal first, then add 1 for growth or subtract from 1 for decay, before applying any fixed amount that is added or removed.
- (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.
- (d) 4.7 km — Multiply the map length by the scale factor: 9.4 × 50 000 = 470 000 cm. Convert to kilometres: 470 000 cm = 4700 m = 4.7 km. Converting only to metres and calling the answer 4700 kilometres mistakes metres for kilometres. Misreading the scale as 1 : 5000 instead of 1 : 50 000, 9.4 × 5000 = 47 000 cm = 0.47 km, is ten times too small. Misplacing the decimal point in 9.4 and effectively using 94, 94 × 50 000 = 4 700 000 cm = 47 km, is ten times too big.
- (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.
- (c) 183 mg — Apply the decay, then add the new dose, once for each hour. Hour 1: 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 140 + 50 = 190. Hour 2: 0.7 × 190 = 133, then 133 + 50 = 183, so there is 183 mg after 2 hours. Forgetting the top-up dose and only applying the decay gives 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 0.7 × 140 = 98 — this ignores that a further 50 mg is given every hour. Adding the 50 mg BEFORE the decay is applied, instead of after, gives 0.7 × (200 + 50) = 175, then 0.7 × (175 + 50) = 157.5, which changes how much of the dose is eliminated in the same hour it is given. Multiplying by 0.3, the percentage ELIMINATED, instead of by 0.7, the percentage REMAINING, gives 0.3 × 200 + 50 = 110, then 0.3 × 110 + 50 = 83 — this mixes up the amount that leaves the bloodstream with the amount that stays in it. Always check whether a percentage describes what remains or what is removed before choosing the multiplier.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.