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) 5:8 — The mix has 5 parts sand and 3 parts cement, so 5 + 3 = 8 parts in total. Sand to total is 5 : 8, and since the highest common factor of 5 and 8 is 1, this is already in its simplest form. Giving 5 : 3 answers sand to cement, not sand to the total mix. Giving 3 : 8 is cement to total, the wrong part of the mix. Giving 8 : 5 has the total and the sand swapped round.
- (c) 4 : 5 — Method: a formula of the form y = kx says that for every 1 of x there are k of y, so the ratio y : x is k : 1, which is then written with whole numbers and cancelled. Working: here k = 0.8, so y : x = 0.8 : 1; multiplying both parts by 10 gives 8 : 10, and dividing both parts by their highest common factor 2 gives 4 : 5. Answer: 4 : 5. The distractors: 5 : 4 comes from writing x : y, reversing the order asked for; 8 : 10 has the decimal cleared but the ratio left unsimplified, and the question asks for the simplest form; 8 : 1 comes from multiplying only the left-hand part by 10 and leaving the 1 unchanged, which changes the relationship instead of keeping it.
- (b) £250 — Since cost is proportional to the cube of the radius, C = kr³. Using r = 3, C = 54: 3³ = 27, so 54 = k × 27, giving k = 54 ÷ 27 = 2. The equation is C = 2r³. When r = 5: 5³ = 125, so C = 2 × 125 = 250. Treating the relationship as proportional to r² instead of r³ gives k = 54 ÷ 9 = 6 and then C = 6 × 25 = 150, which models area scaling, not volume scaling. Treating it as proportional to r itself gives k = 54 ÷ 3 = 18 and then C = 18 × 5 = 90. Finding k correctly from the cube but then multiplying it by the radius instead of by the cube of the radius gives 2 × 5 = 10, which applies the right constant to the wrong power of r. The cost of a container of radius 5 cm is £250.
- (a) Inverse proportion — A curve that decreases and never touches either axis is the standard shape for inverse proportion, y = k/x. Direct proportion graphs are straight lines through the origin, which this is not, so it must be inverse proportion rather than neither.
- (b) 12 — Since y is directly proportional to √x, y = k√x. Using x = 4, y = 8: √4 = 2, so 8 = k × 2, giving k = 8 ÷ 2 = 4. The equation is y = 4√x. When x = 9: √9 = 3, so y = 4 × 3 = 12. Treating the relationship as if y were proportional to x itself, rather than to √x, gives k = 8 ÷ 4 = 2 and then y = 2 × 9 = 18, which is a different relationship. Multiplying k by the new x-value instead of by its square root gives y = 4 × 9 = 36, skipping the square root altogether. Reporting √9 on its own, without multiplying by k, gives only 3, not the value of y. When x = 9, y = 12.
- (b) 4/3 — Work out the number of bananas: 3/4 of 16 = 12. Form the fraction 16/12 (apples over bananas); both numbers share a factor of 4, so 16 ÷ 4 = 4 and 12 ÷ 4 = 3, giving 4/3. 3/4 comes from giving the fraction that was already stated in the question (bananas as a fraction of apples), instead of inverting it. 4/1 comes from reading '3/4 of the apples' as 'the apples reduced by 3/4', giving only 4 bananas, then 16/4 = 4. 4/7 comes from comparing the apples with the total number of pieces of fruit (16/28), instead of with the bananas alone.
- (c) Firm B — £3 per mile against Firm A's £2 per mile — Firm A's gradient is (14 − 4) ÷ 5 = 2, so it charges £2 per mile. Firm B's gradient is (21 − 6) ÷ 5 = 3, so it charges £3 per mile. £3 is more than £2, so Firm B charges more per mile. Swapping the two firms' gradients gives the answer with Firm A at £3 and Firm B at £2, which has the labels the wrong way round. Dividing the change in miles by the change in cost, instead of the other way round, gives 5 ÷ 10 = £0.50 for Firm A and 5 ÷ 15 = £0.33 for Firm B and so names Firm A — that is the gradient upside down. And a positive fixed charge does not mean two firms charge the same rate: the rate is found from the gradient, not from whether the intercept is positive.
- (d) 132 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio, use it to find Leo's pages, then add both amounts together. Working: 84 ÷ 7 = 12 (value of one part). Leo's pages = 12 × 4 = 48. Total = 84 + 48 = 132. Wrong options: 48 gives only Leo's pages and forgets to add Mia's; 147 comes from reversing the ratio parts (84 ÷ 4 × 7 = 147) and stopping there; 231 comes from reversing the ratio parts and then adding Mia's pages (84 + 147).
- (a) 60 minutes — Method: for inverse proportion, printers × time is constant. Working: 6 × 40 = 240 (the constant). With 4 printers: 240 ÷ 4 = 60 minutes. Wrong options: 26.7 minutes comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion, scaling the time down as printers decrease (40 × 4 ÷ 6); 24 minutes comes from multiplying the two printer counts together instead of using the constant; 40 minutes comes from not adjusting the time at all for the change in printers.
- (c) 30 — Method: use y = kx and find k from the given pair of values, then substitute x = 12. Working: k = 20 ÷ 8 = 2.5, so y = 2.5 × 12 = 30. Answer: 30. 24 comes from treating the relationship as additive, adding the increase in x (12 − 8 = 4) straight onto y (20 + 4 = 24), instead of multiplying by k. 14.5 comes from finding k correctly (2.5) but then adding it to x instead of multiplying (12 + 2.5 = 14.5). 4.8 comes from finding k upside down, 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4, and multiplying by x: 12 × 0.4 = 4.8.
- (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
- (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
- (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
- (b) 13/2 — Put the number of pages in the novel over the number of pages in the comic: 312/48. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 24: 312÷24 = 13, 48÷24 = 2, giving 13/2. (2/13 comes from writing the page counts the wrong way round. 11/2 comes from finding the difference in the page counts, 312 − 48 = 264, and writing it as a fraction of the comic's page count, 264/48. 13/15 comes from comparing the novel's page count to the total number of pages in both books, 312/360.)
- (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.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.