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
- (a) The hourly rate is £5 and the fixed fee is £7 — The gradient is (27 − 12) ÷ (4 − 1) = 15 ÷ 3 = £5, the hourly rate. Using the point (1, 12): 12 = 5 × 1 + fee, so the fee is 12 − 5 = £7. That gives 'The hourly rate is £5 and the fixed fee is £7'. Swapping the two figures gives the statement with £7 as the rate and £5 as the fee, which has them the wrong way round. Taking the C-value of the first point, £12, as the fixed fee ignores that 1 hour of hire is already included in that £12. Using 15, the change in C, as the hourly rate without dividing by the change in h (3 hours) gives the statement claiming a £15 hourly rate.
- (d) 120 g — Mass = density × volume, so 0.8 × 150 = 120 g. Working out 150 ÷ 0.8 = 187.5 divides by the density instead of multiplying, the wrong way round for finding a mass. Working out 150 × 8 = 1200 misplaces the decimal point in the density, treating 0.8 g/cm³ as 8 g/cm³. Working out 150 − 0.8 = 149.2 simply subtracts the density from the volume, which does not give a mass. The piece of wood has a mass of 120 g.
- (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.
- (c) £2743.60 — Each year the balance is multiplied by 1.03. After the first year: 4000 × 1.03 = 4120. After the second year: 4120 × 1.03 = 4243.60, so that is what Leah takes out. She then spends £1500 of it, which leaves 4243.60 − 1500 = 2743.60. She has £2743.60 left.
- (d) 20 litres — The ratio of concentrate to water is 2 : 5, so water = concentrate × 5 ÷ 2. 8 × 5 ÷ 2 = 20, so Priya needs 20 litres of water. Giving 40 litres multiplies by 5 but forgets to divide by 2 (8 × 5 = 40). Giving 3.2 litres uses the ratio inverted, multiplying by 2 ÷ 5 instead of 5 ÷ 2 (8 × 2 ÷ 5 = 3.2). Giving 11 litres uses additive reasoning instead of multiplicative: it adds the difference between the ratio parts, 5 − 2 = 3, onto the amount of concentrate (8 + 3 = 11), but ratios scale by multiplying, not by adding a fixed amount.
- (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.
- (a) 3/4 — Write January's total over February's total: 360/480. Both numbers share a factor of 120, so dividing top and bottom by 120 gives 3/4. Choosing 4/3 comes from writing February's amount over January's amount, the wrong way round. Choosing 1/4 comes from finding the difference between the two months (480 − 360 = 120) and writing it over February's amount, instead of using January's amount. Choosing 3/7 comes from writing January's amount over the total received across both months (360 out of 840), instead of over February's amount alone.
- (c) 15 — Method: the number of cakes is in direct proportion to the mass of flour, so find the multiplier between the two masses and apply it to the number of cakes. Working: 6 ÷ 2 = 3, so there is three times as much flour, and 5 × 3 = 15. Answer: 15. The distractors: 10 comes from multiplying the 5 cakes by 2, the mass in the recipe, instead of by the multiplier 3; 20 comes from multiplying by the difference 6 − 2 = 4, treating a proportion problem as a difference problem; 12 comes from rounding 5 ÷ 2 down to 2 cakes per kilogram and working out 6 × 2.
- (a) 4 hours — This is inverse proportion: more pumps take less time. Multiply the original numbers to find the total pump-hours needed: 2 × 10 = 20 pump-hours. Divide by the new number of pumps: 20 ÷ 5 = 4 hours. Working out 10 × 5 ÷ 2 = 25 hours treats it as direct proportion, as if more pumps needed more time. Stopping at 20 gives the total pump-hours, not the number of hours. Working out 10 − (5 − 2) = 7 hours subtracts the extra number of pumps straight from the number of hours, treating pumps and hours as the same kind of quantity. 5 pumps take 4 hours.
- (a) 4/5 — Method: find the June takings first, then write them over the May takings and cancel. Working: the takings fell by £900, so June is £4500 − £900 = £3600; the fraction is 3600/4500, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 900 gives 4/5. Answer: 4/5 of the May takings. The distractors: 1/5 comes from writing the fall over the May takings, 900/4500, which answers how far the takings dropped rather than what June's takings are compared with May's; 5/4 comes from writing May over June, 4500/3600, reversing the order the question asks for; 4/9 comes from writing June over the two months added together, 3600/8100, a part-to-whole fraction when the comparison asked for is with May alone.
- (c) £450 — Method: use the equal ratios 4:5 = 200:x to find Grace's savings, then add the two amounts. Working: Noah's £200 is 4 parts, so one part is £200 ÷ 4 = £50; Grace has 5 parts, so 5 × £50 = £250; altogether £200 + £250 = £450. Answer: £450. The distractors: £250 is Grace's savings on their own, which is the middle step rather than the total the question asks for; £360 comes from reading £200 as the 5 parts instead of the 4, giving one part of £40 and a total of 9 × £40; £400 comes from doubling £200, which treats the two savings as equal and ignores the ratio altogether.
- (d) £82.50 — Find the hourly rate: £52.50 ÷ 7 = £7.50 per hour. For 11 hours: 11 × £7.50 = £82.50. £30 comes from working out the pay for only the extra 4 hours (4 × £7.50), and forgetting to include the original £52.50. £99 comes from misremembering the hourly rate as £9 instead of £7.50, then 11 × £9. £56.50 comes from adding the extra number of hours (4) straight onto the pay in pounds (52.5 + 4), confusing hours with pounds.
- (c) 1 : 3 — n : P = 15 : 45. Dividing both parts by their highest common factor, 15, gives 1 : 3. Inverting the ratio, 3 : 1, swaps profit and number of items. Dividing only the n-part by 15, getting 1, but leaving the P-part as 45 gives 1 : 45 — only one side has been simplified. Dividing only the P-part by 15, getting 3, but leaving the n-part as 15 gives 15 : 3, the opposite partial mistake.
- (d) 4/3 — The amount of yellow paint is 0.75 times the amount of blue paint. As a fraction, 0.75 = 3/4, so yellow = 3/4 of blue. To write blue as a fraction of yellow, use the reciprocal: flip 3/4 to get 4/3. 3/4 comes from keeping the original fraction without inverting it. 1/4 comes from computing 1 − 3/4 = 1/4, which is not how a fraction reverses. 40/3 comes from converting 0.75 to a fraction as 75/1000 = 3/40 (misplacing the decimal point), then inverting that.
- (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.