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) 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.
- (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) £14224 — Value after 2 years: £15000 × 1.04 × 1.04 = £16224. Money left after buying the trailer: £16224 − £2000 = £14224. £14200 comes from treating the two 4% increases as a single flat 8% increase applied once instead of compounding: £15000 × 1.08 = £16200, and £16200 − £2000 = £14200. £13600 comes from applying the 4% increase only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £15000 × 1.04 = £15600, and £15600 − £2000 = £13600. £18224 comes from adding the £2000 instead of subtracting it: £16224 + £2000 = £18224.
- (d) y = 3x/4 — y : x = 3 : 4 means y/x = 3/4. Rearranging to make y the subject gives y = (3/4)x = 3x/4. A student who mixes up which quantity goes on top gets y = 4x/3. A student who treats the ratio numbers as the coefficient and constant of a linear equation instead of a proportional relationship gets y = 3x + 4. A student who mistakes the relationship for inverse proportion gets y = 3/(4x).
- (a) 4 — Method: find the constant of proportionality from the pair given, write the equation, then substitute the new value of y and solve. Working: k = 21 ÷ 7 = 3, so y = 3x; putting y = 12 gives 12 = 3x, and x = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Answer: 4. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying by the constant instead of dividing by it, 12 × 3, which is the proportion set up upside down; 84 comes from multiplying 12 by the 7 from the first pair, using a value of x as though it were the constant; 9 comes from working out 12 − 3, treating the equation as y = x + 3 rather than y = 3x.
- (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.
- (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) 4/3 — The amount of yellow paint is 0.75 times the amount of blue paint. As a fraction, 0.75 = 3/4, so yellow = 3/4 of blue. To write blue as a fraction of yellow, use the reciprocal: flip 3/4 to get 4/3. 3/4 comes from keeping the original fraction without inverting it. 1/4 comes from computing 1 − 3/4 = 1/4, which is not how a fraction reverses. 40/3 comes from converting 0.75 to a fraction as 75/1000 = 3/40 (misplacing the decimal point), then inverting that.
- (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.
- (d) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
- (b) 20 — The gradient is the change in p divided by the change in t: (90 − 30) ÷ (5 − 2) = 60 ÷ 3 = 20. Choosing 0.05 comes from dividing the change in t by the change in p, the wrong way round (3 ÷ 60). Choosing −20 comes from subtracting the coordinates in the wrong order for one part of the calculation, for example (30 − 90) ÷ (5 − 2), giving a negative value. Choosing 18 comes from dividing the second p-coordinate by the second t-coordinate directly (90 ÷ 5) instead of using the change between the two points.
- (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.
- (a) The gradient is 3; the candidate's method is right. — The gradient of a tangent, like any straight line, is the change in y divided by the change in x between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (1, 2) and (5, 14), so the change in y is 14 − 2 = 12 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4. The gradient is 12 ÷ 4 = 3, so the candidate's calculation is correct. Subtracting in the wrong order, (2 − 14) ÷ (5 − 1), gives −12 ÷ 4 = −3, the wrong sign. Adding the two changes instead of dividing them, 12 + 4 = 16, does not find a gradient at all. Dividing the change in x by the change in y instead of the other way round, 4 ÷ 12 = 1/3, inverts the calculation completely. Before accepting or rejecting a claimed gradient, always redo the calculation yourself in the same order — change in y over change in x — rather than trusting the arithmetic as given.
- (a) 22p — First convert the hourly rate to pence: £13.20 = 1320p. Then convert from per hour to per minute by dividing by 60, since there are 60 minutes in an hour: 1320 ÷ 60 = 22p per minute. Working out 1320 × 60 = 79200p multiplies by 60 instead of dividing, going the wrong way between per hour and per minute. Working out 13.20 × 10 = 132p converts pounds to pence using the wrong power of ten, and dividing that by 60 carries the error through to give 2.2p. Working out 13.20 × 100 = 1320p converts the currency correctly but stops there, leaving the rate as pence per hour rather than completing the second conversion to pence per minute. The rate of pay is 22p per minute.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.