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) 27 : 64 — For similar solids, the ratio of volumes is the ratio of lengths cubed: 3³ : 4³ = 27 : 64. 3 : 4 comes from using the height ratio itself as the volume ratio, without cubing it at all. 9 : 16 comes from squaring each part instead of cubing (3² : 4²) — squaring is the rule for area, not volume. 27 : 4 comes from cubing only the first part of the ratio (3³ = 27), and leaving the second part uncubed.
- (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) 8 cm — Method: a scale of 1 : n means the real distance is n times the distance on the map, so to go from the real distance back to the map distance, put both lengths in the same unit and then divide by the scale. Working: 1 km = 100 000 cm, so 8 km = 8 × 100 000 = 800 000 cm; 800 000 ÷ 100 000 = 8. Answer: 8 cm. The distractors: 800000 cm comes from converting the 8 km into centimetres and stopping there, so the division by the scale — the inverse operation the question asks for — is never done; 80 cm comes from taking a metre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8 × 1000 × 1000 = 8 000 000 cm and gives 8 000 000 ÷ 100 000 = 80; 0.08 cm comes from taking a kilometre to be 1000 cm, which turns 8 km into 8000 cm and gives 8000 ÷ 100 000 = 0.08.
- (d) 4 years — Apply the recurrence repeatedly. V_1 = 0.85 × 18000 = 15300. V_2 = 0.85 × 15300 = 13005. V_3 = 0.85 × 13005 = 11054.25. V_4 = 0.85 × 11054.25 = 9396.1125. V_3 = £11054.25 is still above £10000, but V_4 = £9396.11 has dropped below it, so the answer is 4 years. Stopping at V_3 and calling it '3 years' misreads £11054.25 as already below £10000, or comes from wrongly modelling the fall as a flat £2700 a year (15% of the original value each time, without compounding), which crosses £10000 a year too early. Continuing one extra step to V_5 = 0.85 × 9396.1125 = 7986.70 and calling it '5 years' overshoots, since the value had already dropped below £10000 at V_4. Doubling the percentage decrease to 30% by mistake gives V_1 = 0.7 × 18000 = 12600, then V_2 = 0.7 × 12600 = 8820, which is already below £10000 after only 2 years — the wrong rate crosses the threshold too fast.
- (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.
- (b) 3 km — Method: multiply by the scale factor to get the real length in centimetres, then convert to kilometres. Working: 7.5 × 40 000 = 300 000 cm. 300 000 ÷ 100 000 = 3 km. Wrong options: 30 km comes from dividing by 10 000 instead of 100 000 when converting to kilometres; 3000 km comes from dividing by 100 instead of 100 000; 0.3 km comes from dividing by 1 000 000, an extra factor of 10 too many.
- (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) £2.00 — Cost for Printer A = 200 × £0.04 = £8. Cost for Printer B = 200 × £0.05 = £10. Difference = £10 − £8 = £2.00.
- (c) 2/7 — Method: each number in a ratio counts parts, so the whole is all the parts added together, and the fraction wanted is the cement parts over that total. Working: the mix has 5 + 2 = 7 parts altogether, and 2 of those parts are cement, so the cement is 2/7 of the mix. Answer: 2/7. The distractors: 2/5 comes from writing the cement parts over the sand parts, comparing one part with the other part instead of with the whole; 5/7 comes from writing the sand parts over the total, which answers about the wrong material; 7/2 comes from writing the total over the cement parts, turning the fraction upside down.
- (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
- (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.
- (b) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
- (c) 3 — Method: for a tangent written in the form y = mx + c, the coefficient m is the gradient of the line, and the gradient of the tangent at its point of contact equals the curve's instantaneous rate of change there. Working: y = 3x − 2 has gradient 3, so the instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x at x = 4 is 3. Reading the constant term as the rate instead of the coefficient of x gives −2, but −2 is only where the tangent crosses the y-axis, not a rate. Reading the x-coordinate of the point of contact as the rate gives 4, but 4 only tells you where on the curve the tangent touches, not how fast y is changing there. Substituting x = 4 into the tangent equation, 3 × 4 − 2 = 10, gives the y-coordinate of the point of contact, not the rate; a candidate who works out the height of the point instead of the gradient gives 10. Whenever a tangent is given as an equation, the rate of change is always the coefficient of x — do not let the constant term, the x-value or a substituted y-value stand in for it.
- (a) 42 — Find the value of one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Find the number of dogs: 4 × 6 = 24. Add the cats and the dogs to find the total: 18 + 24 = 42. (24 is the number of dogs only, not the total number of animals. 126 comes from multiplying the number of cats by the total number of parts, 18 × 7, instead of finding one part first. 25 comes from adding the ratio numbers 3 and 4 directly to the number of cats.)
- (d) £270 — Method: the £90 is a difference between two shares, so turn it into a number of parts before finding the value of one part. Working: the largest share is 3 parts and the smallest is 1 part, so the difference is 3 − 1 = 2 parts and 2 parts are worth £90; one part = £90 ÷ 2 = £45; the whole amount is 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, so 6 × £45 = £270. Answer: £270. The distractors: £540 comes from treating the £90 as the value of one part and multiplying it by the 6 parts; £180 comes from finding the £45 correctly but adding only the 1-part and 3-part shares and forgetting the middle share; £135 comes from multiplying £45 by 3 and giving the largest share instead of the total.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.