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) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (a) 2.5 — Method: the factor by which the SIZE of one rate is greater than the size of another is found by dividing the larger magnitude by the smaller magnitude, ignoring their signs, so here the two magnitudes to work with are 8.75 and 3.5. Working: 8.75 ÷ 3.5 = 2.5, so the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 2 hours was 2.5 times the size of the instantaneous rate of change at t = 8 hours. Subtracting the two magnitudes, 8.75 − 3.5 = 5.25, gives how many thousand litres per hour greater one rate is than the other, not how many times greater — that is a difference, not a factor. Dividing the magnitudes the wrong way round, 3.5 ÷ 8.75 = 0.4, gives the factor by which the rate at t = 8 hours is smaller than at t = 2 hours, the reciprocal of what was asked for. Adding the magnitudes, 8.75 + 3.5 = 12.25, combines the two rates instead of comparing them, and does not answer a 'by what factor' question at all. A question that asks 'by what factor' is always answered by a division, in the order the question states it — check which rate is on top before you divide.
- (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.
- (b) No — rate fell by 3.7 thousand/month — Each tangent gradient is the instantaneous growth rate, in thousand subscribers per month. To compare them, subtract the later rate from the earlier one: 4.8 − 1.1 = 3.7. Since 1.1 is less than 4.8, the growth rate has fallen by 3.7 thousand subscribers per month, so the manager is wrong — the app is growing more slowly at 18 months, not faster. Subtracting the other way round and calling the result a rise, 'rate rose by 3.7 thousand/month', gets the direction backwards: the later gradient is the smaller of the two. Adding the two gradients, 4.8 + 1.1 = 5.9, and calling this a combined rate that shows speeding up, is the wrong operation for comparing two rates. Treating the difference 3.7 as a total number of subscribers lost, rather than a rate in thousands per month, confuses a rate with a count. Always subtract the two rates in a sensible order and keep the units in thousands per month.
- (b) 7.2 m — Multiply the model wingspan by the scale factor: 15 × 48 = 720. This is in centimetres, and 720 cm = 7.2 m, since 1 m = 100 cm. Giving 0.31 m divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (15 ÷ 48 ≈ 0.31), scaling the model down rather than the real aircraft up. Giving 72 m converts centimetres to metres by dividing by 10 instead of 100. Giving 0.72 m converts by dividing by 1000 instead of 100.
- (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).
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) £310 — Gradient = (210 − 130) ÷ (7 − 3) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20, so the monthly rate is £20. Using C = 20m + c with the point (3, 130): 130 = 60 + c, so c = 70. After 12 months: C = 20 × 12 + 70 = 240 + 70 = £310.
- (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.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (a) 36 — Pressure = force ÷ area, so 126 ÷ 3.5 = 36 N/m². (0.03 comes from dividing the area by the force instead of the force by the area, the wrong way round. 129.5 comes from adding 126 and 3.5 instead of dividing. 441 comes from multiplying 126 by 3.5 instead of dividing.)
- (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.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.