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
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 7.6 — Density = mass ÷ volume, so 356.5 ÷ 47 = 7.585..., which rounds to 7.6 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). (0.1 comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume, the wrong way round. 7.5 comes from rounding 7.585 down instead of up to 1 decimal place. 403.5 comes from adding the mass and the volume instead of dividing.)
- (d) 500 ml — Varnish covers a surface, so the amount needed scales with the area scale factor, which is the square of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5, so the area scale factor is 2.5 × 2.5 = 6.25. The varnish needed for the larger statue is 80 × 6.25 = 500 ml. Using 2.5 on its own would scale a length, not a surface.
- (a) 7 — The average rate of change of y with respect to x over an interval is the change in y divided by the change in x between its two endpoints — the gradient of the chord joining them, not a rate at a single point. At x = 1: 2 × 1 = 2, so y = 1 + 2 = 3. At x = 4: 2 × 4 = 8, so y = 16 + 8 = 24. The change in y is 24 − 3 = 21 and the change in x is 4 − 1 = 3, so the average rate of change is 21 ÷ 3 = 7. Reporting the change in y, 21, on its own is not a rate of change, because it has not been divided by the 3 units of x over which it happened. Reporting 3 is not a rate either — 3 is the width of the interval, and also the value of y at x = 1, and neither of those measures how fast y is changing. Subtracting in the wrong order gives −21 ÷ 3 = −7, the wrong sign. The average rate of change of y with respect to x over the interval is 7.
- (a) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) Faster at t = 8s — still accelerating — The gradient of a tangent on a distance-time graph is the instantaneous speed, in m/s. At t = 2 seconds the speed is 6 m/s; at t = 8 seconds it is 9.5 m/s, which is faster, so the sprinter is still accelerating between these two times. Saying the sprinter is slower at t = 8s reverses the comparison — 9.5 is greater than 6, not less. Writing 9.5 − 6 = 3.5 and calling this 'metres further covered' turns the difference of two speeds into a distance, which the units do not support: a difference of two speeds is itself a speed, not a distance. Taking 9.5 m/s, the larger of the two instantaneous speeds, as the average speed for the whole race confuses a speed at one instant with an average over the whole distance, which would need the total distance and total time, not two tangent gradients.
- (a) 20 people/year — The gradient of a tangent to a graph at a point equals the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity there. A straight line's gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (2, 180) and (6, 260), so the change in population is 260 − 180 = 80 and the change in time is 6 − 2 = 4. The gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20. Reporting the change in population, 80, on its own is not a rate, because that growth happened over 4 years and has not been divided by them. Adding the two changes instead of dividing gives 80 + 4 = 84, which is not a rate. Subtracting the coordinates in the wrong order, (180 − 260) ÷ (6 − 2), gives −80 ÷ 4 = −20, the wrong sign. The instantaneous rate of change of the population at t = 4 is 20 people per year.
- (b) 1.00 litres — Total volume = 350 + 650 = 1000 cm³. Since 1000 cm³ = 1 litre, the smoothie is 1.00 litre. Using only the orange juice's 650 cm³ and converting that gives 0.65 litres, forgetting the mango juice entirely. Using only the mango juice's 350 cm³ gives 0.35 litres, forgetting the orange juice. Adding both volumes correctly to get 1000 cm³ but not converting to litres leaves the answer as 1000.00, which is the volume in the wrong unit.
- (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).
- (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) 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.
- (a) 12 — Speed × time is constant: k = 20 × 15 = 300. At 25 pages per minute, the time is 300 ÷ 25 = 12 minutes. Getting 18.75 comes from treating speed and time as directly proportional and working out 15 × 25 ÷ 20 instead of dividing k by the new speed. Getting 20 comes from adding the increase in speed (25 − 20 = 5) onto the time (15 + 5 = 20). Getting 10 comes from subtracting that same increase in speed from the time (15 − 5 = 10).
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.