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
- (c) 3 — Method: for a tangent written in the form y = mx + c, the coefficient m is the gradient of the line, and the gradient of the tangent at its point of contact equals the curve's instantaneous rate of change there. Working: y = 3x − 2 has gradient 3, so the instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x at x = 4 is 3. Reading the constant term as the rate instead of the coefficient of x gives −2, but −2 is only where the tangent crosses the y-axis, not a rate. Reading the x-coordinate of the point of contact as the rate gives 4, but 4 only tells you where on the curve the tangent touches, not how fast y is changing there. Substituting x = 4 into the tangent equation, 3 × 4 − 2 = 10, gives the y-coordinate of the point of contact, not the rate; a candidate who works out the height of the point instead of the gradient gives 10. Whenever a tangent is given as an equation, the rate of change is always the coefficient of x — do not let the constant term, the x-value or a substituted y-value stand in for it.
- (c) 24p — Method: change the price to pence, then find what one tenth of 1 kg costs, since 100 g is one tenth of 1 kg. Working: £2.40 = 240p per kg, and 240 ÷ 10 = 24p per 100 g. So the cost is 24p per 100 g. Distractor 2.4p comes from dividing by 100 instead of 10. Distractor 2400p comes from multiplying by 10 instead of dividing. Distractor 240p comes from using the price per kg without scaling it down to 100 g.
- (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.
- (d) 3 : 8 — Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 0.75 × 4 = 3 and 2 × 4 = 8, giving 3 : 8, which has no common factor other than 1. Giving 75 : 200 multiplies by 100 instead of 4, and has not then been simplified down to 3 : 8. Giving 0.75 : 2 has not been converted into whole numbers at all. Giving 3 : 2 converts the first part correctly but leaves the second part unscaled.
- (d) d ÷ t — Average speed = distance ÷ time, so the expression is d ÷ t. Writing t ÷ d inverts the formula, giving the time per kilometre instead of the speed. Writing d × t confuses speed with the formula for distance travelled (distance = speed × time) used the wrong way round. Writing d + t treats the relationship as additive instead of using division.
- (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) £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.
- (c) 2.5 — x : y = 2 : 5 means that for every matching pair of values, y ÷ x = 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. So y = 2.5x, and comparing with y = kx gives k = 2.5. Dividing the other way round, 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4, gives x in terms of y — that is the constant for x = 0.4y, not for y = kx. Taking the y-part of the ratio on its own, 5, reads one number off the ratio instead of dividing the y-part by the x-part; 5 would only be right if the x-part were 1. Subtracting the two parts, 5 − 2 = 3, treats the ratio as a difference, but a ratio compares two quantities by multiplication, not by subtraction. The constant is k = 2.5.
- (d) 40 — Substitute x = 5 and y = 8 into y = k ÷ x to get 8 = k ÷ 5, so k = 8 × 5 = 40. Getting 13 comes from adding the two numbers (5 + 8) instead of multiplying. Getting 1.6 comes from dividing 8 by 5 instead of multiplying. Getting 3 comes from subtracting the two numbers (8 − 5) instead of multiplying.
- (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.
- (c) 2 : 5 — The point (4, 10) gives x = 4, y = 10, so x : y = 4 : 10. Dividing both parts by their highest common factor, 2, gives 2 : 5 in simplest form. Inverting the whole ratio gives 5 : 2, which is y : x instead of x : y. Dividing only the x-part by 2 and leaving the y-part as 10 gives 2 : 10, but scaling one part on its own changes the ratio: 2 : 10 is the same as 1 : 5, not 4 : 10. Dividing only the y-part by 2 and leaving the x-part as 4 gives 4 : 5, the same one-sided mistake made on the other part of the ratio.
- (b) They are in inverse proportion, because x × y = 60 for both pairs. — Testing inverse proportion means checking that x × y is the same for every pair: 4 × 15 = 60 and 6 × 10 = 60, so the quantities are in inverse proportion. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test. Saying they are not in inverse proportion because y ÷ x differs uses the test for direct proportion, and finding that it differs tells us nothing about inverse proportion. Saying x × y = 40 for both pairs is an arithmetic slip: 4 × 15 = 60, not 40.
- (c) 3 hours — Method: inverse proportion means speed × time is constant for the journey, so find that constant and divide it by the new speed. Working: 60 × 2 = 120, which is the distance in kilometres; at 40 km/h the time is 120 ÷ 40 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 1.5 hours is the ratio of the speeds, 60 ÷ 40, given as a time instead of being used to scale the original 2 hours; 1 hour 20 minutes comes from treating time as directly proportional to speed, 2 × 40 ÷ 60, which has the slower train arriving sooner; 2 hours comes from finding the constant 120 and then dividing it by the original 60 km/h again, so the time never changes.
- (b) 1500 m — Method: multiply the map length by the scale to get the real length in centimetres, then divide by 100 to change centimetres into metres. Working: 3 × 50 000 = 150 000 cm, and 150 000 ÷ 100 = 1500. Answer: 1500 m. The distractors: 15000 m comes from dividing the 150 000 cm by 10 instead of 100; 150 m comes from dividing by 1000, the conversion for kilometres; 50000 m comes from writing the scale itself as the answer and ignoring the 3 cm measured on the map.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.