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) 1 : 2 000 000 — Method: a scale is a ratio between two lengths written in the same unit, reduced so that the map distance is 1. Working: 120 km = 120 × 1000 × 100 = 12 000 000 cm, so the ratio is 6 : 12 000 000, and dividing both parts by 6 gives 1 : 2 000 000. Answer: 1 : 2 000 000. The distractors: 1 : 12 000 000 comes from writing the real length in centimetres without dividing by the 6 cm on the map; 1 : 200 000 comes from taking 120 km as 1 200 000 cm, one conversion step short, before dividing by 6; 1 : 20 000 comes from converting 120 km to 120 000 m and treating those metres as centimetres.
- (c) 7800 kg/m³ — Method: build the conversion factor from the two unit changes separately — one for the mass, one for the volume. Working: 1 kg = 1000 g, so the mass figure is divided by 1000; 1 m = 100 cm, so 1 m³ = 100 × 100 × 100 = 1000000 cm³ and the volume figure is multiplied by 1000000. The density figure is therefore multiplied by 1000000 ÷ 1000 = 1000, giving 7.8 × 1000 = 7800. So the density of the metal is 7800 kg/m³. Distractor 780 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 100 instead of 1000. Distractor 78000 kg/m³ comes from multiplying by 10000, an extra zero. Distractor 7.8 kg/m³ comes from not converting the units at all.
- (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 : 2 — Method: 'A is k times B' means that if B is taken as 1 part then A is k parts, and a ratio in its simplest form is written with whole numbers that have no common factor. Working: taking B as 1, A is 1.5, so A : B = 1.5 : 1; multiplying both parts by 2 clears the decimal and gives 3 : 2, and 3 and 2 share no factor. Answer: 3 : 2. The distractors: 2 : 3 comes from writing B before A, reversing the order the question asks for; 1.5 : 1 is the right relationship but is not in its simplest form, because a ratio in its simplest form uses whole numbers; 3 : 5 comes from comparing A with the combined length rather than with B, since A : (A + B) = 1.5 : 2.5 = 3 : 5.
- (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) The gradient is 3; the candidate's method is right. — The gradient of a tangent, like any straight line, is the change in y divided by the change in x between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (1, 2) and (5, 14), so the change in y is 14 − 2 = 12 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4. The gradient is 12 ÷ 4 = 3, so the candidate's calculation is correct. Subtracting in the wrong order, (2 − 14) ÷ (5 − 1), gives −12 ÷ 4 = −3, the wrong sign. Adding the two changes instead of dividing them, 12 + 4 = 16, does not find a gradient at all. Dividing the change in x by the change in y instead of the other way round, 4 ÷ 12 = 1/3, inverts the calculation completely. Before accepting or rejecting a claimed gradient, always redo the calculation yourself in the same order — change in y over change in x — rather than trusting the arithmetic as given.
- (a) £150 — Value after year 1: £800 × 0.75 = £600. Value after year 2: £600 × 0.75 = £450. The loss during the second year alone is £600 − £450 = £150. £450 comes from giving the value remaining after 2 years, not the amount lost during the second year. £200 comes from working out the loss during the first year instead of the second: £800 − £600 = £200. £350 comes from working out the total loss over both years instead of just the second year's loss: £800 − £450 = £350.
- (a) 4 weeks — Apply the recurrence week by week. C_1 = 0.75 × 500 + 40 = 375 + 40 = 415. C_2 = 0.75 × 415 + 40 = 311.25 + 40 = 351.25. C_3 = 0.75 × 351.25 + 40 = 263.4375 + 40 = 303.4375. C_4 = 0.75 × 303.4375 + 40 = 227.578125 + 40 = 267.578125. C_3 = 303.4375 is still above 300, but C_4 = 267.58 has dropped below it, so the lake first becomes safe after 4 weeks. Taking 25% of the ORIGINAL 500 every week instead of 25% of the current amount, a flat 125 each time, gives 500 − 125 + 40 = 415, then 415 − 125 + 40 = 330, then 330 − 125 + 40 = 245, which crosses 300 a week too early and gives the wrong answer of 3 weeks. Continuing one extra step to C_5 = 0.75 × 267.578125 + 40 = 200.68 + 40 = 240.68 and calling it 5 weeks overshoots, since the concentration had already dropped below 300 at C_4. Forgetting the 40 units of run-off each week and only applying the decay gives C_1 = 0.75 × 500 = 375, then C_2 = 0.75 × 375 = 281.25 — this is already below 300 after only 2 weeks, because without the run-off the concentration falls much faster.
- (b) 48 m² — Method: lengths are multiplied by the scale factor, but areas are multiplied by its square. Working: 1 cm on the plan stands for 200 cm = 2 m, so 1 cm² on the plan stands for 2 × 2 = 4 m², and 12 × 4 = 48. Answer: 48 m². The distractors: 24 m² comes from scaling the area by the length factor 2 instead of by its square; 2400 m² comes from multiplying the area by the scale 200 as though it were a length; 4800 m² comes from working in centimetres, 12 × 200² = 480 000 cm², and then dividing by 100 instead of by 10 000 to reach square metres.
- (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
- (c) 4/5 — Find 20% of £45: 10% is £4.50, so 20% is £9. The sale price is £45 − £9 = £36. Form the fraction 36/45; both numbers share a factor of 9, so 36 ÷ 9 = 4 and 45 ÷ 9 = 5, giving 4/5. 1/5 comes from writing the discount itself as a fraction of the normal price (9/45), instead of the sale price. 6/5 comes from adding the 20% instead of subtracting it, giving a sale price of £54, then 54/45 = 6/5. 5/9 comes from treating 'reduced by 20%' as 'reduced by £20', giving a sale price of £25, then 25/45 = 5/9.
- (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.
- (c) 1.25 cm — Method: find the real length using the first map's scale, then use the second map's scale to find its drawn length. Working: real length = 5 × 20 000 = 100 000 cm. On the second map: 100 000 ÷ 80 000 = 1.25 cm. Wrong options: 20 cm comes from inverting the ratio of the two scales (5 × 80 000 ÷ 20 000); 5 cm comes from wrongly assuming the length looks the same on both maps; 12.5 cm comes from dropping a zero from the second scale factor and dividing by 8 000 instead of 80 000 (100 000 ÷ 8 000).
- (d) 12 — First find the y-values at the two ends of the chord. At x = 2, y = 2 × 2² + 5 = 2 × 4 + 5 = 8 + 5 = 13. At x = 4, y = 2 × 4² + 5 = 2 × 16 + 5 = 32 + 5 = 37. The gradient of the chord is the change in y divided by the change in x: 37 − 13 = 24, then 24 ÷ (4 − 2) = 24 ÷ 2 = 12. Stopping after finding the change in y and not dividing by the change in x gives 24, which is not a gradient at all. Inverting the fraction, change in x divided by change in y, gives 2 ÷ 24 ≈ 0.08. Averaging the two y-values instead of finding the change between them gives (13 + 37) ÷ 2 = 50 ÷ 2 = 25. A gradient is always change in y over change in x — never the other way round, and never a single y-value.
- (c) 3 : 4 — Method: a fraction compares a part with the whole, while this ratio compares one part with the other part, so find the fraction that is black before writing the ratio. Working: if 3/7 are blue then the black pens make up 7/7 − 3/7 = 4/7 of the box, so out of every 7 pens 3 are blue and 4 are black, and blue : black = 3 : 4. Answer: 3 : 4. The distractors: 3 : 7 comes from reading the numerator and the denominator of 3/7 straight off as the two parts, which compares the blue pens with the whole box rather than with the black pens; 4 : 3 comes from writing the black pens before the blue pens, reversing the order asked for; 4 : 7 is the same numerator-and-denominator reading applied to the black fraction 4/7, again comparing a part with the whole box.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.