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
- (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
- (b) 16 — Method: substitute x into each equation separately, then subtract the smaller value from the larger. Working: y = 3 × 4 = 12 and z = 7 × 4 = 28, so the difference is 28 − 12 = 16. Answer: 16. The distractors: 4 comes from subtracting the constants, 7 − 3, which is the difference between the two gradients rather than the difference between the values at x = 4; 40 comes from adding the two values, 12 + 28, instead of subtracting them; 28 is the value of z on its own, given instead of being compared with the value of y.
- (a) 0.62 miles — The gradient of the line is the change in miles divided by the change in kilometres: 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62, so 1 kilometre converts to 0.62 miles. Dividing the wrong way round, 50 ÷ 31 = 1.612..., rounds to 1.61 miles — that finds how many kilometres are in 1 mile, not the reverse. Doubling the gradient, 1.24 miles, comes from using 62 ÷ 50 instead of 31 ÷ 50. Reading off the y-coordinate of the given point without dividing by the x-coordinate gives 31.00 miles, which is the number of miles for 50 kilometres, not for 1 kilometre.
- (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.
- (a) 4 : 15 — Convert to the same unit first: 1.5 kg = 1500 g, since 1 kg = 1000 g. This gives the ratio 400 : 1500. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 100, to get 4 : 15. Giving 40 : 150 divides by 10 only, which is not the highest common factor, so it is not fully simplified. Giving 15 : 4 swaps the order. Giving 4 : 1.5 has not converted 1.5 kg into grams, so the two parts are not measured in the same unit.
- (b) 1 : 500 — smallest real distance per cm (5 m), most detail — Method: compare what one centimetre represents in real life for each scale — the scale with the smallest real distance per cm shows the most detail. Working: for 1 : 500, 1 cm represents 500 cm (5 m); for 1 : 5000, 1 cm represents 50 m; for 1 : 50 000, 1 cm represents 500 m. Since 5 m is the smallest, 1 : 500 shows the most detail. Wrong options: '1 : 50 000 — covers the largest real area' wrongly assumes covering more area means more detail, when it is the opposite; '1 : 5000 — the middle value' wrongly assumes the middle scale is automatically the most balanced; '1 : 500 — covers the largest real distance' picks the correct scale but states an incorrect fact, since 1 : 500 actually covers the smallest real distance per cm.
- (c) The tangent is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. — Method: at any point where a distance–time graph is momentarily neither increasing nor decreasing, the tangent to the graph at that point is horizontal, and the gradient of a horizontal line is 0 — this is the instantaneous rate of change at that instant. Working: since the hiker's distance is neither increasing nor decreasing at t = 45 minutes, the tangent there is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. Claiming the tangent is vertical, with an undefined gradient, is the opposite of what the stem says: a vertical tangent would mean the distance was changing infinitely fast at that instant, not that it had stopped changing, and on a distance–time graph it cannot happen at all. Reading the gradient as 45, the time value given in the stem, mistakes a value used to LOCATE the point for the rate of change AT that point. Claiming the gradient cannot be found without also knowing the distance at t = 45 minutes overlooks that 'momentarily stationary' already tells you the rate of change directly, without needing to read any distance value at all. Whenever a stem tells you a quantity is momentarily not changing, that is telling you the instantaneous rate of change directly — it is 0, and no further data is needed to find it.
- (a) 70 km/h — Method: average speed for a whole journey is the total distance divided by the total time, not the mean of the separate speeds. Working: 3 × 80 = 240 km and 1 × 40 = 40 km, giving 280 km in 3 + 1 = 4 hours, so 280 ÷ 4 = 70. Answer: 70 km/h. The distractors: 60 km/h comes from taking the mean of 80 and 40, which would only be right if equal times were spent at each speed; 280 km/h is the total distance written with a speed unit, from forgetting to divide by the total time; 80 km/h comes from quoting the speed of the longer leg as the average for the whole journey.
- (b) 1:200000 — '1 cm represents 2 km' means 1 cm on the map is 2 km in real life. Convert 2 km into centimetres, the same unit as the 1: 2 km = 2000 m = 200 000 cm. So the scale is 1 : 200 000. Converting only as far as metres gives 1 : 2000 — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Losing a zero in the conversion gives 1 : 20 000, ten times too small. Writing 1 : 2 without converting units at all compares 1 cm to 2 km directly, which is not a valid ratio since the units do not match.
- (d) 13/10 — First find the selling price: £150 + £45 = £195. Put the selling price over the cost price: 195/150. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 15: 195÷15 = 13, 150÷15 = 10, giving 13/10. (10/13 comes from writing the prices the wrong way round. 3/10 is just the profit written as a fraction of the cost price, 45/150, not the selling price. 13/23 comes from comparing the selling price to the combined total of the cost price and the selling price, 195/345.)
- (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.
- (c) 5 : 9 — Write the ratio mass : cost = 3 : 5.4. Multiply both parts by 10 to clear the decimal: 30 : 54. Both numbers share a factor of 6, so 30 ÷ 6 = 5 and 54 ÷ 6 = 9, giving 5 : 9. 3 : 5 comes from ignoring the decimal point and treating £5.40 as £5. 9 : 5 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, cost to mass instead of mass to cost. 1 : 18 comes from multiplying only the cost by 10 instead of both parts, giving 3 : 54, and then cancelling that correctly to 1 : 18 — the cancelling is fine, but the ratio being cancelled is not the right one.
- (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.
- (c) £624.32 — A 4% rise is a multiplier of 1.04, applied once each year. After year 1: 5000 × 1.04 = 5200. After year 2: 5200 × 1.04 = 5408. After year 3: 5408 × 1.04 = 5624.32. The question asks for the interest, not the value of the account, so take away the amount invested at the start: 5624.32 − 5000 = 624.32. The total interest earned is £624.32.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.