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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) 1.00 litres — Squash is 2/9 of the mixture, so the squash volume is 4.5 × 2/9 = 1.00 litres. Using the water's fraction, 7/9, instead of squash's gives 4.5 × 7/9 = 3.50 litres — the volume of water, not squash. Dividing 4.5 by 9 but forgetting to multiply by the numerator 2 gives 4.5 ÷ 9 = 0.50 litres, which is only 1/9 of the mixture. Halving the total volume instead of applying the fraction 2/9 gives 4.5 ÷ 2 = 2.25 litres, which assumes the mixture is half squash.
- (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
- (c) 9% — Method: a percentage concentration is the ratio of salt to solution written per 100 g, so scale each concentration to the mass it belongs to, add the two masses of salt, then scale the ratio of salt to mixture back to a denominator of 100. Working: 5:100 = x:400 gives 5 ÷ 100 × 400 = 20 g of salt, and 25:100 = y:100 gives 25 g of salt; the mixture holds 20 + 25 = 45 g of salt in 400 + 100 = 500 g of solution; 45:500 = 9:100. Answer: 9%. The distractors: 15% is the mean of 5% and 25%, which would only be right if the two masses were equal, and here one is four times the other; 21% comes from attaching the concentrations to the wrong masses, working out (400 × 25% + 100 × 5%) ÷ 500; 0.9% comes from working out 45 ÷ 500 = 0.09 and then moving the decimal point one place instead of two when writing the decimal as a percentage.
- (b) 48 m² — Method: lengths are multiplied by the scale factor, but areas are multiplied by its square. Working: 1 cm on the plan stands for 200 cm = 2 m, so 1 cm² on the plan stands for 2 × 2 = 4 m², and 12 × 4 = 48. Answer: 48 m². The distractors: 24 m² comes from scaling the area by the length factor 2 instead of by its square; 2400 m² comes from multiplying the area by the scale 200 as though it were a length; 4800 m² comes from working in centimetres, 12 × 200² = 480 000 cm², and then dividing by 100 instead of by 10 000 to reach square metres.
- (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.
- (d) Profit is decreasing by £10 per £1 rise in price. — The gradient of a tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price, found from the change in profit divided by the change in price between two points on the tangent. Here the tangent passes through (12, 540) and (18, 480), so the change in profit is 480 − 540 = −60 and the change in price is 18 − 12 = 6. The gradient is −60 ÷ 6 = −10. A negative gradient means profit is decreasing as price increases, so profit is decreasing at an instantaneous rate of £10 for every £1 rise in price. Subtracting the profits in the wrong order, 540 − 480 = 60, and dividing by the same change in price, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, gives a positive value and the wrong direction — profit is not increasing at £15. Stopping after finding only the change in profit, 480 − 540 = −60, without dividing by the change in price, is not a rate at all. Reading off the change in price, 6, and calling it the rate gives £6 per £1 rise in price, but 6 is only the width of the price interval — it is not a change in profit at all, and profit falls across that interval, so the direction is wrong too. The instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price at £15 is a decrease of £10 per £1 rise in price.
- (c) 1 : 25 — The radii are in the ratio 4 : 20, which simplifies to 1 : 5. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so the area ratio is 1² : 5² = 1 : 25. Giving 1 : 5 uses the radius ratio without squaring it. Giving 1 : 10 doubles the radius ratio instead of squaring it. Giving 25 : 1 has the areas the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger.
- (a) 100 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 7 − 3 = 4 parts, and this is worth 40 beads. Divide to find one part: 40 ÷ 4 = 10. The total number of parts is 7 + 3 = 10, so the total number of beads is 10 × 10 = 100. (40 is just the given difference between gold and silver, not the total. 70 is the number of gold beads only, using 7 parts. 30 is the number of silver beads only, using 3 parts.)
- (a) 10 — Method: two equal fractions can be rearranged by cross-multiplying, multiplying each numerator by the other denominator. Working: 4 × 5 = 2 × x, so 2x = 20 and x = 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from cross-multiplying to 4 × 5 = 20 and stopping there, without dividing by the 2; 8 comes from multiplying the two numerators, 4 × 2; 2.5 comes from working only with the right-hand fraction, 5 ÷ 2, and ignoring the 4.
- (d) The population is growing at 2500 people per year. — The gradient of a tangent to a graph gives the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity on the vertical axis with respect to the quantity on the horizontal axis, at that exact point — not the total change and not an average. Here the vertical axis is population in thousands and the horizontal axis is time in years, so the gradient is measured in thousands of people per year. A gradient of 2.5 means the population is growing at an instantaneous rate of 2.5 thousand people per year, and since P is measured in thousands, 2.5 × 1000 = 2500 people per year. This describes the rate of change at that instant, not the total increase over the 6 years and not an average population.
- (c) 250 miles — Find the distance travelled in 1 hour: 150 ÷ 3 = 50 miles. Multiply by 5 hours: 50 × 5 = 250 miles. Giving 300 miles doubles the original distance (150 × 2 = 300) using a scale factor of 2 instead of the correct 5 ÷ 3. Giving 200 miles adds only one extra hour's distance, 50, instead of the two extra hours actually needed (150 + 50 = 200, rather than 150 + 100). Giving 90 miles divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (150 × 3 ÷ 5 = 90).
- (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
- (d) 1:4 — Convert 1.4 l to millilitres: 1.4 l = 1400 ml. The ratio is 350 : 1400. Divide both parts by 350: 350 ÷ 350 = 1 and 1400 ÷ 350 = 4, giving 1 : 4. Misreading 1.4 l as 14 (moving the decimal point) gives 350 : 14, which simplifies to 25 : 1 — a very different, implausible ratio. Dividing by 175 instead of 350 gives 2 : 8, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 4 : 1, litres to millilitres the wrong way round.
- (a) 8 cm — Method: a scale of 1 : n means the real distance is n times the distance on the map, so to go from the real distance back to the map distance, put both lengths in the same unit and then divide by the scale. Working: 1 km = 100 000 cm, so 8 km = 8 × 100 000 = 800 000 cm; 800 000 ÷ 100 000 = 8. Answer: 8 cm. The distractors: 800000 cm comes from converting the 8 km into centimetres and stopping there, so the division by the scale — the inverse operation the question asks for — is never done; 80 cm comes from taking a metre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8 × 1000 × 1000 = 8 000 000 cm and gives 8 000 000 ÷ 100 000 = 80; 0.08 cm comes from taking a kilometre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8000 cm and gives 8000 ÷ 100 000 = 0.08.
- (c) 6.00 m — Method: the ratio of height to shadow length is the same for both objects. Working: road sign height ÷ shadow = 3 ÷ 5 = 0.6. Lamppost height = 0.6 × 10 = 6.00 m. Wrong options: 16.67 m comes from inverting the ratio, using shadow ÷ height instead of height ÷ shadow (10 × 5 ÷ 3); 8.00 m comes from adding the difference between the two shadow lengths to the road sign's height instead of scaling (3 + (10 − 5)); 1.50 m comes from multiplying by the ratio of the two shadow lengths the wrong way round (3 × 5 ÷ 10).
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.