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
- (d) 135 m² — Method: for area, the scale factor must be squared. Working: area scale = 300² = 90 000. 15 × 90 000 = 1,350,000 cm². Convert to m² by dividing by 10 000: 1,350,000 ÷ 10 000 = 135 m². Wrong options: 0.45 m² comes from using the linear scale factor (×300) instead of squaring it; 1,350,000 m² comes from forgetting to convert the answer from cm² to m²; 13,500 m² comes from dividing by 100 instead of 10 000 when converting units.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 13/2 — Put the number of pages in the novel over the number of pages in the comic: 312/48. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 24: 312÷24 = 13, 48÷24 = 2, giving 13/2. (2/13 comes from writing the page counts the wrong way round. 11/2 comes from finding the difference in the page counts, 312 − 48 = 264, and writing it as a fraction of the comic's page count, 264/48. 13/15 comes from comparing the novel's page count to the total number of pages in both books, 312/360.)
- (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
- (a) 5/12 — Work out the distance still to travel: 372 − 217 = 155 miles. Form the fraction 155/372; both numbers share a factor of 31, so 155 ÷ 31 = 5 and 372 ÷ 31 = 12, giving 5/12. 7/12 comes from writing the distance already travelled as the fraction of the journey (217/372 = 7/12), instead of the distance still to travel. 145/372 comes from miscalculating 372 − 217 as 145 instead of 155. 5/7 comes from comparing the remaining distance with the distance already travelled (155/217 = 5/7), instead of with the total journey.
- (d) 400 — The area scale factor is the length scale factor squared: 20² = 400, so the real car's surface area is 400 times the model's. 20 comes from using the length scale factor itself, without squaring it. 8000 comes from cubing the length scale factor (20³), instead of squaring it — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 40 comes from doubling the length scale factor (2 × 20), instead of squaring it.
- (c) 7.6 — Density = mass ÷ volume, so 356.5 ÷ 47 = 7.585..., which rounds to 7.6 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). (0.1 comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume, the wrong way round. 7.5 comes from rounding 7.585 down instead of up to 1 decimal place. 403.5 comes from adding the mass and the volume instead of dividing.)
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (a) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
- (b) 12 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 4, y = 8: √4 = 2, so 8 = k × 2, giving k = 8 ÷ 2 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When x = 9: √9 = 3, so y = 4 × 3 = 12. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself, rather than to √x, gives k = 8 ÷ 4 = 2 and then y = 2 × 9 = 18, which is a different relationship. Multiplying k by the new x-value instead of by its square root gives y = 4 × 9 = 36, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √9 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 3, not the value of y. When x = 9, y = 12.
- (c) 88 km/h — Multiply the speed in mph by the conversion factor: 55 × 1.6 = 88 km/h. Dividing by 1.6 instead of multiplying gives 55 ÷ 1.6 ≈ 34.38 km/h, going the wrong way between the units. Adding the conversion factor instead of multiplying gives 55 + 1.6 = 56.6 km/h, treating the factor as an amount rather than a multiplier. Multiplying by 0.6 instead of 1.6 gives 55 × 0.6 = 33 km/h, using only part of the conversion factor. 55 mph is equal to 88 km/h.
- (a) 46.8 km/h — Method: 1 hour = 60 minutes, so a rate given in kilometres per minute is converted to kilometres per hour by multiplying by 60. Working: 0.78 × 60 = 46.8, so the instantaneous rate of change is 46.8 kilometres per hour. Keeping the given value unchanged and only relabelling the unit gives 0.78 km/h, which ignores that the time unit has changed. Dividing by 60 instead of multiplying — as you would when converting to a larger length unit — gives 0.78 ÷ 60 = 0.013 km/h, the wrong direction for a rate measured against a larger time unit. Adding 60 to the given rate instead of multiplying by it gives 0.78 + 60 = 60.78 km/h. Converting a rate always means multiplying or dividing by the conversion factor between the units, never adding it, and the direction depends on whether the new time unit is bigger or smaller than the old one.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.