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.
Answer key: Ratio, proportion and rates of change worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 1.2 — Add the parts of the ratio: 6 + 1 = 7. Divide the total amount by the number of parts: 8.4 ÷ 7 = 1.2 litres, which is the value of one part and also the amount of syrup, since syrup is 1 part. (7.2 litres is the amount of water, using 6 parts instead of 1. 1.4 comes from dividing 8.4 by 6 — the water's part of the ratio — instead of dividing by the total number of parts, 7. 0.84 comes from dividing 8.4 by 10 instead of by 7.)
- (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.
- (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
- (c) 5 hours — Method: measure the job in decorator-hours, which is in the same ratio as the number of rooms, then share the decorator-hours between the decorators available. Working: 5 decorators × 6 hours = 30 decorator-hours for 3 rooms, so one room takes 30 ÷ 3 = 10 decorator-hours; 5 rooms take 5 × 10 = 50 decorator-hours; shared between 10 decorators that is 50 ÷ 10 = 5 hours. Answer: 5 hours. The distractors: 3 hours comes from halving the 6 hours because the number of decorators doubles, while forgetting that there are also more rooms to paint; 10 hours comes from scaling the 6 hours up for the rooms only, 6 × 5 ÷ 3, and leaving the workforce at 5 decorators; 6 hours comes from assuming that doubling the decorators and increasing the rooms cancel each other out, which they do not, because the rooms rise by a factor of 5/3 and the workforce by a factor of 2.
- (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
- (d) The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g — Work out the cost per 100 g of each box. 750 g box: 270p ÷ 7.5 = 36p per 100 g. 500 g box: 195p ÷ 5 = 39p per 100 g. The lower cost per 100 g is the better value, so the 750 g box at 36p per 100 g is the answer. Choosing the 500 g box at 39p per 100 g gets the maths right but picks the higher unit price, not realising a smaller cost per 100 g is the better deal. Choosing the 500 g box because £1.95 is lower than £2.70 compares the total prices without allowing for the different pack sizes at all. Working out 270 ÷ 5 = 54p divides the 750 g box's price by the wrong number of hundred-grams (the 500 g box's), giving a rate that belongs to neither box. The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g, is the better value.
- (b) Takings rise about £14 per 1°C rise — The gradient here is positive, so as temperature rises, takings rise too: near 22°C, takings increase by about £14 for every 1°C rise in temperature. Reversing this to say takings rise for every 1°C FALL gets the direction of the independent variable backwards — a positive gradient means both quantities move the same way. Saying 'takings are £14 at 22°C' confuses the gradient, a rate of change, with the y-value on the graph, which is the takings itself. Saying takings 'rose £14 in total' from 0°C to 22°C treats the gradient at a single point as if it applied over the whole range from 0°C to 22°C, when it only describes the instant at 22°C. Always keep a rate, a total change and a single reading separate.
- (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
- (d) 64 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 25, y = 20: √25 = 5, so 20 = k × 5, giving k = 20 ÷ 5 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When y = 32: √x = 32 ÷ 4 = 8, and x = 8² = 64. Stopping at √x = 8 without squaring leaves the square root of x, not x itself. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself gives k = 20 ÷ 25 = 0.8 and then x = 32 ÷ 0.8 = 40, which is a different relationship entirely. Multiplying instead of dividing when isolating √x gives √x = 32 × 4 = 128, far too large to be a square root here. When y = 32, x = 64.
- (b) 12 days — This is inverse proportion: fewer painters take longer. Multiply the original numbers to find the total painter-days needed: 8 × 6 = 48 painter-days. Divide by the new number of painters: 48 ÷ 4 = 12 days. Working out 6 × 4 ÷ 8 = 3 days treats it as direct proportion, as if fewer painters needed less time. Stopping at 48 gives the total painter-days, not the number of days. Working out 6 + (8 − 4) = 10 days adds the change in the number of painters straight onto the number of days, treating painters and days as the same kind of quantity. 4 painters take 12 days.
- (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
- (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.
- (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
- (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.