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
- (a) 22p — First convert the hourly rate to pence: £13.20 = 1320p. Then convert from per hour to per minute by dividing by 60, since there are 60 minutes in an hour: 1320 ÷ 60 = 22p per minute. Working out 1320 × 60 = 79200p multiplies by 60 instead of dividing, going the wrong way between per hour and per minute. Working out 13.20 × 10 = 132p converts pounds to pence using the wrong power of ten, and dividing that by 60 carries the error through to give 2.2p. Working out 13.20 × 100 = 1320p converts the currency correctly but stops there, leaving the rate as pence per hour rather than completing the second conversion to pence per minute. The rate of pay is 22p per minute.
- (c) 4 — The gradient of a tangent at a point equals the instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x at that point. A straight line's gradient is found from the change in y divided by the change in x between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (1, 4) and (5, 20), so the change in y is 20 − 4 = 16 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4. The gradient is 16 ÷ 4 = 4. Stopping after finding the change in y, 16, without dividing it by the change in x, is not a gradient at all — that rise happened across 4 units of x, not 1. Adding the two changes instead of dividing one by the other gives 16 + 4 = 20, which is not how a gradient is found. Subtracting in the wrong order, (4 − 20) ÷ (5 − 1), gives −16 ÷ 4 = −4, the wrong sign. The instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x at x = 3 is 4.
- (b) 12 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 5 − 2 = 3 parts, and this is worth 18. Divide to find one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Cats have 2 parts: 2 × 6 = 12. (30 is the number of dogs, using 5 parts instead of 2. 6 is the value of one part — the number of cats is 2 lots of this, not just one. 9 comes from dividing 18 by 2 and stopping there, instead of dividing by the difference in parts, 3, and then multiplying by 2.)
- (d) 4:1 — Write the ratio online : in-store using the numbers in the question: 180 : 45. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 45, to give 4 : 1. (1:4 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, in-store : online. 3:1 comes from subtracting the in-store orders from the online orders, 180 − 45 = 135, and comparing that to the in-store orders, 135:45, instead of dividing. 4:5 comes from comparing the online orders to the total number of orders, 180:225.)
- (d) 7/4 — A part-to-part ratio a : b gives the fraction a/b when the first quantity is written as a fraction of the second, so 7 : 4 gives 7/4. Writing 4/7 puts the parts the wrong way round — blue as a fraction of red, not red as a fraction of blue. Writing 7/11 uses the total number of counters, 7 + 4 = 11, as the denominator instead of the number of blue counters — that is red as a fraction of the whole bag, not red as a fraction of blue. Writing 11/7 has both the wrong denominator and the parts inverted.
- (c) 1:2 — Convert £1.50 into pence: £1.50 = 150p, so the ratio is 75 : 150. Dividing both parts by 75 gives 1 : 2. Getting 50 : 1 comes from not converting the units at all and simplifying 75 : 1.5. Getting 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 3 : 4 comes from reading 75p as 3/4 of a pound and then comparing it with £1 instead of £1.50.
- (a) Inverse proportion — A curve that decreases and never touches either axis is the standard shape for inverse proportion, y = k/x. Direct proportion graphs are straight lines through the origin, which this is not, so it must be inverse proportion rather than neither.
- (b) 5/7 — The enlargement multiplier is 1.4, which as a fraction is 7/5. To reverse an enlargement, use the reciprocal of the multiplier: flip 7/5 to get 5/7. 7/5 comes from using the enlargement multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from treating the reverse as 'give back the extra amount', working out 1 − (1.4 − 1) = 0.6, instead of using the reciprocal. 5/2 comes from ignoring the whole number in 1.4 and inverting only the decimal part, 0.4, as if it were the whole multiplier.
- (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.
- (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
- (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (c) 1.2 cm/s — To estimate an instantaneous rate of change at a point from a table of readings, use the chord that spans the point symmetrically — equal steps either side — because the over-estimate on one side and the under-estimate on the other largely cancel. Here that is the chord from t = 10 to t = 30. The change in depth is 56 − 32 = 24 and the change in time is 30 − 10 = 20, so the estimate is 24 ÷ 20 = 1.2 cm/s. The one-sided chord from t = 20 to t = 30 gives (56 − 45) ÷ (30 − 20) = 11 ÷ 10 = 1.1 cm/s, which estimates the rate somewhere between t = 20 and t = 30 rather than at t = 20 itself. Dividing the 20-second change in depth by the 10-second gap between consecutive readings gives 24 ÷ 10 = 2.4, mixing the change from one interval with the time from another. Reporting the change in depth, 24, on its own is not a rate at all, because it has not been divided by a time. The best estimate of the instantaneous rate of change of depth at t = 20 is 1.2 cm/s.
- (a) 2 km — Method: multiply the map distance by the scale to get the real distance in centimetres, then convert centimetres to kilometres using 100 cm = 1 m and 1000 m = 1 km. Working: 4 × 50 000 = 200 000 cm; 200 000 ÷ 100 = 2000 m; 2000 ÷ 1000 = 2. Answer: 2 km. The distractors: 200 km comes from dividing the 200 000 cm by 1000 in a single step, as if a kilometre were 1000 cm rather than the 100 000 cm it is; 20 km comes from converting to metres correctly, 200 000 ÷ 100 = 2000 m, and then dividing those metres by 100 instead of by 1000; 0.2 km comes from dividing by 1000 to reach metres, as if a metre were 1000 cm, and then dividing by 1000 again, so 200 000 is divided by 1 000 000 altogether.
- (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
- (c) −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, which on this graph is a number of litres for each mile, and a negative gradient means the vertical quantity is going down. Working: from (0, 45) to (150, 15) the fuel changes by 15 − 45 = −30 litres while the distance changes by 150 − 0 = 150 miles, so the gradient is −30 ÷ 150 = −0.2, which says the tank loses 0.2 litres for every mile driven. Answer: −0.2, the car uses 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile. The distractors: '0.2, the car gains 0.2 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from subtracting the fuel values the other way round, 45 − 15 = 30, which drops the minus sign and reverses what the graph says; '−5, the car uses 5 litres of fuel for each mile' comes from dividing the change in distance by the change in fuel, 150 ÷ (−30), turning the gradient upside down; '−30, the car uses 30 litres of fuel for each mile' is the change in fuel on its own, never divided by the 150 miles travelled.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.