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) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (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.
- (c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.
- (a) 3/8, 41%, 0.43 — Method: convert every value to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale, then order them. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, 41% = 0.41, and 0.43 stays as 0.43, so from smallest to largest the decimals are 0.375, 0.41, 0.43, giving the order 3/8, 41%, 0.43. Answer: 3/8, 41%, 0.43. The order 3/8, 0.43, 41% comes from comparing 0.43 and 41% as raw digits (43 versus 41) without converting 41% into the decimal 0.41 first, wrongly placing 0.43 before 41%. The order 0.43, 41%, 3/8 comes from placing the values in completely reversed order, from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. The order 41%, 0.43, 3/8 comes from ordering the values by their TYPE (percentage, then decimal, then fraction) rather than by their actual size.
- (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.
- (b) 5/7 — The enlargement multiplier is 1.4, which as a fraction is 7/5. To reverse an enlargement, use the reciprocal of the multiplier: flip 7/5 to get 5/7. 7/5 comes from using the enlargement multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from treating the reverse as 'give back the extra amount', working out 1 − (1.4 − 1) = 0.6, instead of using the reciprocal. 5/2 comes from ignoring the whole number in 1.4 and inverting only the decimal part, 0.4, as if it were the whole multiplier.
- (c) C = 1.5n — Method: a fixed ratio between C and n means C is always the same multiple of n, and that multiple is the cost of one bottle. Working: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.5, 7.50 ÷ 5 = 1.5 and 12.00 ÷ 8 = 1.5, so every bottle costs £1.50 and C = 1.5n. Answer: C = 1.5n. The distractors: C = n + 1 comes from subtracting on the first row, 3 − 2 = 1, and adding that difference instead of multiplying; it fits the first row and fails the other two, which is why three rows are given; C = 3n reads the £3.00 as the price of one bottle when it is the price of two; C = n/1.5 divides the number of bottles by the price of one bottle, which works out how many bottles a pound buys instead of what n bottles cost.
- (c) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (b) 12 days — This is inverse proportion: fewer painters take longer. Multiply the original numbers to find the total painter-days needed: 8 × 6 = 48 painter-days. Divide by the new number of painters: 48 ÷ 4 = 12 days. Working out 6 × 4 ÷ 8 = 3 days treats it as direct proportion, as if fewer painters needed less time. Stopping at 48 gives the total painter-days, not the number of days. Working out 6 + (8 − 4) = 10 days adds the change in the number of painters straight onto the number of days, treating painters and days as the same kind of quantity. 4 painters take 12 days.
- (c) 88 km/h — Multiply the speed in mph by the conversion factor: 55 × 1.6 = 88 km/h. Dividing by 1.6 instead of multiplying gives 55 ÷ 1.6 ≈ 34.38 km/h, going the wrong way between the units. Adding the conversion factor instead of multiplying gives 55 + 1.6 = 56.6 km/h, treating the factor as an amount rather than a multiplier. Multiplying by 0.6 instead of 1.6 gives 55 × 0.6 = 33 km/h, using only part of the conversion factor. 55 mph is equal to 88 km/h.
- (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.
- (b) 0.22 km — The real one-way distance is 4.4 × 2500 = 11000 cm. Converting units: 11000 ÷ 100 = 110 m, and 110 ÷ 1000 = 0.11 km. Since the jogger runs there and back, the total distance is 0.11 × 2 = 0.22 km. 0.11 km comes from working out only the one-way distance and forgetting the return journey. 220 km comes from correctly doubling the one-way distance in metres, 110 × 2 = 220, but leaving it mislabelled as kilometres instead of converting metres to kilometres. 110 km comes from working out only the one-way distance in metres, 110, and mislabelling it as kilometres.
- (d) Gradient = acceleration; area = distance travelled. — Method: on a speed–time graph, the gradient of the graph at an instant is the rate of change of speed with time, which is acceleration; the area between the graph and the time-axis over an interval is the total distance covered in that interval, because it accumulates speed × time. Working: gradient = acceleration and area = distance travelled is the correct pairing. Swapping the two quantities completely, gradient = distance travelled and area = acceleration, is the reverse of what each actually measures. Keeping gradient = acceleration correct but then also claiming area = acceleration too is wrong because the area is a different physical quantity, distance, not a second way of finding the same rate. Claiming the gradient itself gives the speed confuses the RATE OF CHANGE of the plotted quantity with the plotted quantity itself — the gradient is how fast the speed is changing, not the speed. On any rate graph, the gradient of the graph is always the RATE at that instant, and the area under the graph is always the TOTAL AMOUNT accumulated — keep straight which of the two questions each one answers.
- (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.
- (d) 1.5 — Method: the length scale factor is the square root of the area scale factor, not the area scale factor itself. Working: the area scale factor is 45 ÷ 20 = 2.25, and the square root of 2.25 is 1.5. Answer: 1.5. Nadia's answer, 2.25, is the AREA scale factor — she never took the square root to get back to the length scale factor. 4.5 comes from doubling the area scale factor instead of taking its square root. 0.67 comes from taking the square root in the wrong direction, finding the scale factor from the larger rug to the smaller rug instead of the other way round.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.