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) 3 : 5 — If orange juice is 3/8 of the total, apple juice is the remaining 1 − 3/8 = 5/8. The ratio of orange to apple is therefore 3 : 5. Inverting gives 5 : 3, apple to orange instead of orange to apple. Using the denominator 8 as the second part of the ratio, 3 : 8, compares orange juice to the whole drink rather than to the apple juice alone. Pairing the total 8 with the apple fraction's numerator 5 gives 8 : 5, which mixes a whole-total figure with a part figure.
- (b) 2/5 — The ratio red : yellow is 6:15, so write red over yellow: 6/15. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 3: 6÷3 = 2, 15÷3 = 5, giving 2/5. (5/2 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, yellow over red, 15/6, which simplifies to 5/2. 2/7 comes from comparing the red paint to the total amount of paint, 6 parts out of 21. 5/7 comes from comparing the yellow paint to the total amount of paint, 15 parts out of 21.)
- (d) Profit is decreasing by £10 per £1 rise in price. — The gradient of a tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price, found from the change in profit divided by the change in price between two points on the tangent. Here the tangent passes through (12, 540) and (18, 480), so the change in profit is 480 − 540 = −60 and the change in price is 18 − 12 = 6. The gradient is −60 ÷ 6 = −10. A negative gradient means profit is decreasing as price increases, so profit is decreasing at an instantaneous rate of £10 for every £1 rise in price. Subtracting the profits in the wrong order, 540 − 480 = 60, and dividing by the same change in price, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, gives a positive value and the wrong direction — profit is not increasing at £15. Stopping after finding only the change in profit, 480 − 540 = −60, without dividing by the change in price, is not a rate at all. Reading off the change in price, 6, and calling it the rate gives £6 per £1 rise in price, but 6 is only the width of the price interval — it is not a change in profit at all, and profit falls across that interval, so the direction is wrong too. The instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price at £15 is a decrease of £10 per £1 rise in price.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 4 — Method: find the length scale factor by taking the cube root of the volume scale factor, then square it to get the area scale factor. Working: 8 = 2³, so the length scale factor is 2, and the area scale factor is 2² = 4. Answer: 4. 8 comes from using the volume scale factor itself as if it were the area scale factor. 64 comes from squaring the volume scale factor, 8² = 64, instead of first taking its cube root. 2 comes from correctly finding the length scale factor but then forgetting to square it.
- (b) 2, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte — Method: the gradient is the change in cost divided by the change in data, so it is the cost of each extra gigabyte; the value where the line meets the vertical axis is the charge before any data is used, which is a different quantity. Working: from (0, 10) to (8, 26) the cost rises by 26 − 10 = 16 pounds while the data rises by 8 − 0 = 8 gigabytes, so the gradient is 16 ÷ 8 = 2, meaning each extra gigabyte costs £2. Answer: 2, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte. The distractors: '10, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte' reads the intercept as the gradient, but 10 is what the tariff costs when no data at all has been used; '3.25, the cost in pounds of each extra gigabyte' comes from 26 ÷ 8, treating the line as though it passed through the origin when it starts at 10; '2, the fixed monthly charge in pounds' has the gradient right but describes the intercept, and the fixed charge on this tariff is £10.
- (b) £76.00 — One part of the ratio is £47.50 ÷ 5 = £9.50. The school receives 8 parts, so its share is 9.50 × 8 = £76.00. Dividing £47.50 by 8 instead of 5, treating the charity's amount as if it were 8 parts, gives 47.50 ÷ 8 = 5.9375, then × 5 = £29.69. Adding the charity's amount to the school's amount instead of stopping at the school's own share gives the total collected, 9.50 × 13 = £123.50. Adding one part to the charity's amount instead of multiplying one part by 8 gives 47.50 + 9.50 = £57.00.
- (b) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
- (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.
- (b) 2.5 hours — Method: when two objects move in opposite directions the gap between them grows at the sum of their speeds, so divide the required gap by that combined rate. Working: 80 + 60 = 140 km of gap each hour, and 350 ÷ 140 = 2.5. Answer: 2.5 hours. The distractors: 17.5 hours comes from subtracting the speeds, 80 − 60 = 20, which is the rate for two cars travelling in the same direction; 5 hours comes from using the mean of the two speeds, 70 km/h, instead of their sum; 4.375 hours comes from dividing 350 by 80 and ignoring the second car altogether.
- (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.