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) 1 : 1.875 — To write a ratio in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by the first part, 8: 8 ÷ 8 = 1 and 15 ÷ 8 = 1.875, giving 1 : 1.875. Giving 1 : 0.53 divides the wrong way round, computing 8 ÷ 15 instead of 15 ÷ 8. Giving 1.875 : 1 has the two parts of the answer swapped, which is the form n : 1, not 1 : n. Giving 8 : 1.875 divides only the second part by 8, so the first part is still 8, not 1.
- (d) 3 : 2 : 5 — The highest common factor of 45, 30 and 75 is 15. Divide each part by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 75 ÷ 15 = 5, giving 3 : 2 : 5. Giving 9 : 6 : 15 divides by 5, a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 15 : 10 : 25 divides by 3 only, even further from simplest form. Giving 2 : 3 : 5 has the first two parts swapped.
- (c) 2 : 5 — The point (4, 10) gives x = 4, y = 10, so x : y = 4 : 10. Dividing both parts by their highest common factor, 2, gives 2 : 5 in simplest form. Inverting the whole ratio gives 5 : 2, which is y : x instead of x : y. Dividing only the x-part by 2 and leaving the y-part as 10 gives 2 : 10, but scaling one part on its own changes the ratio: 2 : 10 is the same as 1 : 5, not 4 : 10. Dividing only the y-part by 2 and leaving the x-part as 4 gives 4 : 5, the same one-sided mistake made on the other part of the ratio.
- (b) 4% — Method: find the total interest earned, share it equally across the number of years to find one year's interest, then write it as a percentage of the amount invested. Working: total interest = £840 − £750 = £90, so one year's interest is £90 ÷ 3 = £30, and £30 as a percentage of £750 is (£30 ÷ £750) × 100 = 4%. Answer: 4%. 12% comes from treating the total interest of £90 as if it were earned in a single year, (£90 ÷ £750) × 100 = 12%, forgetting to divide by 3 years. 0.04% comes from finding the correct decimal, £30 ÷ £750 = 0.04, but forgetting to multiply by 100 to convert it into a percentage. 112% comes from writing the final amount, £840, as a percentage of the amount invested, £750, without first subtracting the £750 to find the interest alone.
- (a) 1:8 — Convert 2 kg to grams: 2 kg = 2000 g. The ratio is 250 : 2000. The highest common factor of 250 and 2000 is 250. Divide both parts by 250: 250 ÷ 250 = 1 and 2000 ÷ 250 = 8, so the ratio is 1 : 8. Leaving the kilograms unconverted gives 250 : 2, which simplifies to 125 : 1 — the units on each side are different, so this does not compare like with like. Dividing by 50 instead of 250 gives 5 : 40, which still shares a common factor of 5, so it is not fully simplified. Swapping the order gives 8 : 1, grams to kilograms the wrong way round.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) £450 — Method: use the equal ratios 4:5 = 200:x to find Grace's savings, then add the two amounts. Working: Noah's £200 is 4 parts, so one part is £200 ÷ 4 = £50; Grace has 5 parts, so 5 × £50 = £250; altogether £200 + £250 = £450. Answer: £450. The distractors: £250 is Grace's savings on their own, which is the middle step rather than the total the question asks for; £360 comes from reading £200 as the 5 parts instead of the 4, giving one part of £40 and a total of 9 × £40; £400 comes from doubling £200, which treats the two savings as equal and ignores the ratio altogether.
- (d) 4:5 — Write the ratio pounds : dollars as 1 : 1.25. Multiply both parts by 4 to clear the decimal: 1 × 4 = 4 and 1.25 × 4 = 5, giving 4 : 5. (5:4 comes from writing the ratio the wrong way round, dollars to pounds. 1:1 comes from rounding 1.25 dollars down to the nearest whole dollar. 1:5 comes from multiplying only the dollars by 4 to clear the decimal and leaving the pounds as 1 — both parts of a ratio must be multiplied by the same number.)
- (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.
- (a) 1.5 km — Multiply the map length by the scale: 6 × 25 000 = 150 000 cm. Convert to kilometres: 150 000 cm = 1.5 km. Dividing by only 1000 instead of the full conversion when changing units gives 150 km, a hundred times too large. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 6 × 2500 = 15 000 cm = 0.15 km, a hundred times too small. Leaving the answer as 150 000 without converting units at all, and calling it 150 000 km, mistakes centimetres for kilometres completely.
- (c) 40 — Working out successive terms shows where the sequence is heading, but the terms themselves keep changing — the limit is the value where the sequence stops changing, so x_{n+1} = x_n = L there. Substituting into the rule: L = 0.5L + 20. Subtracting 0.5L from both sides: L − 0.5L = 20, so 0.5L = 20, and L = 20 ÷ 0.5 = 40. The individual terms are x_1 = 0.5 × 0 + 20 = 20, x_2 = 0.5 × 20 + 20 = 30 and x_3 = 0.5 × 30 + 20 = 35, getting closer to this value but not equal to it — 35 is only the third term, not the limit. Multiplying by 0.5 instead of dividing at the final step, 20 × 0.5 = 10, undoes the rearrangement rather than completing it, and gives a value smaller than terms the sequence has already passed. Writing the fixed-point equation with the wrong sign, L = 0.5L − 20, gives 0.5L = −20 and L = −40, which cannot be right since every term in the sequence is positive and increasing. The value the sequence is approaching is 40.
- (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) The tangent is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. — Method: at any point where a distance–time graph is momentarily neither increasing nor decreasing, the tangent to the graph at that point is horizontal, and the gradient of a horizontal line is 0 — this is the instantaneous rate of change at that instant. Working: since the hiker's distance is neither increasing nor decreasing at t = 45 minutes, the tangent there is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. Claiming the tangent is vertical, with an undefined gradient, is the opposite of what the stem says: a vertical tangent would mean the distance was changing infinitely fast at that instant, not that it had stopped changing, and on a distance–time graph it cannot happen at all. Reading the gradient as 45, the time value given in the stem, mistakes a value used to LOCATE the point for the rate of change AT that point. Claiming the gradient cannot be found without also knowing the distance at t = 45 minutes overlooks that 'momentarily stationary' already tells you the rate of change directly, without needing to read any distance value at all. Whenever a stem tells you a quantity is momentarily not changing, that is telling you the instantaneous rate of change directly — it is 0, and no further data is needed to find it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.