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
- (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.
- (c) £840 — Method: find the total amount raised using the reverse percentage, then subtract the entry fees to find the donations. Working: £1,260 is 60% of the total, so the total is £1,260 ÷ 0.6, and subtracting the entry fees from this total leaves £840 raised through donations. Answer: £840. £2,100 comes from correctly finding the total amount raised but then forgetting to subtract the entry fees, giving the total instead of the donations alone. £504 comes from working out 40% of the entry fees themselves, £1,260 × 0.4 = £504, instead of first finding the total amount raised. £1,890 comes from treating £1,260 as 40% of the total instead of 60%, dividing by 0.4 to get a total of £3,150, and then subtracting the entry fees from that incorrect total.
- (a) It's an average over 20 days, which may miss the day-5 rate. — Method: a chord's gradient is the AVERAGE rate of change across the whole interval it spans; it only closely approximates the INSTANTANEOUS rate of change at a point inside that interval when the rate of change is roughly constant across the interval, which usually means the interval needs to be short. Working: here the chord spans 20 days while the point of interest, t = 5, is only a quarter of the way along it, so if the reservoir's level rose or fell at different rates over that time, the chord's gradient will not be close to the true gradient of the curve at t = 5 — this is the correct reason. Claiming the chord's gradient needs the water level at every day in between is wrong: a chord's gradient needs only the two endpoint values, at t = 0 and t = 20. Claiming a chord can only estimate the rate at its own endpoints is wrong: a chord between two points can be used to estimate the instantaneous rate of change at any point inside the interval, including one that is not an endpoint — that is exactly the technique being used here, and it is the SIZE of the interval that makes the estimate poor, not the fact that t = 5 is an interior point. Claiming the units do not match is wrong: the chord's gradient and the instantaneous rate of change are both measured in metres per day, so the units are the same. A chord is only a good estimate of an instantaneous rate when the interval it spans is short enough that the rate does not change much within it — always check how long the interval is compared with how far it is to the point you actually want.
- (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.
- (b) 1:1.6 — To write 5 : 8 in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by 5, the first number, so that it becomes 1: 5 ÷ 5 = 1 and 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, giving 1 : 1.6. Dividing both parts by 8 instead gives 0.6 : 1 (5 ÷ 8 = 0.625, rounded to 0.6) — the first part is no longer 1, so this is not in the required form. Dividing 5 by 8 but writing the result after the 1 gives 1 : 0.6, which divides in the wrong direction: n must come from 8 ÷ 5, not 5 ÷ 8. A slip in the division 8 ÷ 5, rounding it to 1.5 instead of the correct 1.6, gives 1 : 1.5.
- (b) 19.0 g/cm³ — Density = mass ÷ volume. 342.6 ÷ 18 = 19.0333…, which rounds to 19.0 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). 6166.8 g/cm³ comes from multiplying the mass by the volume instead of dividing (342.6 × 18). 324.6 g/cm³ comes from subtracting the volume from the mass (342.6 − 18) instead of dividing. 0.1 g/cm³ comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume (18 ÷ 342.6 = 0.0525…, rounded to 1 d.p.).
- (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
- (c) £624.32 — A 4% rise is a multiplier of 1.04, applied once each year. After year 1: 5000 × 1.04 = 5200. After year 2: 5200 × 1.04 = 5408. After year 3: 5408 × 1.04 = 5624.32. The question asks for the interest, not the value of the account, so take away the amount invested at the start: 5624.32 − 5000 = 624.32. The total interest earned is £624.32.
- (d) £3.60 per component — The gradient of a cost-against-components graph has units of pounds per component, since cost is measured in pounds and the horizontal axis counts components. So 3.60 means it costs an extra £3.60 to produce one more component at that point. Calling it '£3.60 total cost' confuses the gradient, a rate, with the y-value on the graph, which is the total cost itself. Giving it as 3.60 components per pound swaps which axis is on top, giving the units of the reciprocal gradient, not the gradient itself. Turning 3.60 into a percentage invents a unit that has no basis in the graph's axes — a gradient here is a number of pounds, not a percentage. Always build the gradient's units from the two axes' own units, in the order y-axis over x-axis.
- (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) 183 mg — Apply the decay, then add the new dose, once for each hour. Hour 1: 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 140 + 50 = 190. Hour 2: 0.7 × 190 = 133, then 133 + 50 = 183, so there is 183 mg after 2 hours. Forgetting the top-up dose and only applying the decay gives 0.7 × 200 = 140, then 0.7 × 140 = 98 — this ignores that a further 50 mg is given every hour. Adding the 50 mg BEFORE the decay is applied, instead of after, gives 0.7 × (200 + 50) = 175, then 0.7 × (175 + 50) = 157.5, which changes how much of the dose is eliminated in the same hour it is given. Multiplying by 0.3, the percentage ELIMINATED, instead of by 0.7, the percentage REMAINING, gives 0.3 × 200 + 50 = 110, then 0.3 × 110 + 50 = 83 — this mixes up the amount that leaves the bloodstream with the amount that stays in it. Always check whether a percentage describes what remains or what is removed before choosing the multiplier.
- (c) £672 — Simple interest per year = 3% of £600 = £18. Over 4 years the interest is 18 × 4 = £72. Total in the account = £600 + £72 = £672. A student who gives just the interest, without adding it to the principal, writes £72. A student who adds only one year's interest instead of four gets £600 + £18 = £618. A student who wrongly compounds the interest each year gets 600 × 1.03⁴ = £675.31.
- (a) 10 — Since y is directly proportional to x², y = kx². Using x = 4, y = 32: 32 = k × 16, so k = 32 ÷ 16 = 2. The equation is y = 2x². When y = 200: x² = 200 ÷ 2 = 100, so x = 10, taking the positive root because the question states that x is positive. Stopping at x² = 100 without taking the square root leaves 100, not the value of x itself. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself gives k = 32 ÷ 4 = 8 and then x = 200 ÷ 8 = 25, which is a different relationship entirely. Multiplying by k instead of dividing when rearranging gives x² = 200 × 2 = 400 and x = 20, which is not this equation rearranged correctly. The value of x when y = 200 is 10.
- (c) 250 miles — Find the distance travelled in 1 hour: 150 ÷ 3 = 50 miles. Multiply by 5 hours: 50 × 5 = 250 miles. Giving 300 miles doubles the original distance (150 × 2 = 300) using a scale factor of 2 instead of the correct 5 ÷ 3. Giving 200 miles adds only one extra hour's distance, 50, instead of the two extra hours actually needed (150 + 50 = 200, rather than 150 + 100). Giving 90 miles divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (150 × 3 ÷ 5 = 90).
- (c) 9% — Method: a percentage concentration is the ratio of salt to solution written per 100 g, so scale each concentration to the mass it belongs to, add the two masses of salt, then scale the ratio of salt to mixture back to a denominator of 100. Working: 5:100 = x:400 gives 5 ÷ 100 × 400 = 20 g of salt, and 25:100 = y:100 gives 25 g of salt; the mixture holds 20 + 25 = 45 g of salt in 400 + 100 = 500 g of solution; 45:500 = 9:100. Answer: 9%. The distractors: 15% is the mean of 5% and 25%, which would only be right if the two masses were equal, and here one is four times the other; 21% comes from attaching the concentrations to the wrong masses, working out (400 × 25% + 100 × 5%) ÷ 500; 0.9% comes from working out 45 ÷ 500 = 0.09 and then moving the decimal point one place instead of two when writing the decimal as a percentage.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.