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) 1:12 — C = 12n means that for every 1 pen there are 12 pence of cost, so n : C = 1 : 12, and the highest common factor of 1 and 12 is 1, so this is already in its simplest form. Writing C : n instead of n : C gives 12 : 1, the ratio the wrong way round. Reading C = 12n as '12 more than n' instead of '12 times n', so n = 1 gives C = 13, gives 1 : 13, from adding instead of multiplying. Choosing n = 12, so C = 12 × 12 = 144, gives the correct pair of values n : C = 12 : 144, but the ratio the right way round left unsimplified — 12 and 144 share a common factor of 12, which has not been cancelled.
- (c) 1 : 25 — The radii are in the ratio 4 : 20, which simplifies to 1 : 5. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so the area ratio is 1² : 5² = 1 : 25. Giving 1 : 5 uses the radius ratio without squaring it. Giving 1 : 10 doubles the radius ratio instead of squaring it. Giving 25 : 1 has the areas the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger.
- (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.
- (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
- (b) 75 cm² — Areas of similar shapes are in the ratio of the squares of their lengths. Squaring both parts of 3 : 5 gives an area ratio of 9 : 25, so the larger area is 25/9 of the smaller one. Working with the smaller area: 27 ÷ 9 = 3, and 3 × 25 = 75. The area of the larger rectangle is 75 cm².
- (d) 4 years — Apply the recurrence repeatedly. V_1 = 0.85 × 18000 = 15300. V_2 = 0.85 × 15300 = 13005. V_3 = 0.85 × 13005 = 11054.25. V_4 = 0.85 × 11054.25 = 9396.1125. V_3 = £11054.25 is still above £10000, but V_4 = £9396.11 has dropped below it, so the answer is 4 years. Stopping at V_3 and calling it '3 years' misreads £11054.25 as already below £10000, or comes from wrongly modelling the fall as a flat £2700 a year (15% of the original value each time, without compounding), which crosses £10000 a year too early. Continuing one extra step to V_5 = 0.85 × 9396.1125 = 7986.70 and calling it '5 years' overshoots, since the value had already dropped below £10000 at V_4. Doubling the percentage decrease to 30% by mistake gives V_1 = 0.7 × 18000 = 12600, then V_2 = 0.7 × 12600 = 8820, which is already below £10000 after only 2 years — the wrong rate crosses the threshold too fast.
- (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
- (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) 32 km/h — Method: to change mph into km/h, multiply by the number of kilometres in a mile. Working: 20 × 1.6 = 32 km/h. So the cyclist's speed is 32 km/h. Distractor 12.5 km/h comes from dividing by 1.6 instead of multiplying. Distractor 21.6 km/h comes from adding 1.6 instead of multiplying by it. Distractor 20 km/h comes from not converting the units at all.
- (d) £270 — Method: the £90 is a difference between two shares, so turn it into a number of parts before finding the value of one part. Working: the largest share is 3 parts and the smallest is 1 part, so the difference is 3 − 1 = 2 parts and 2 parts are worth £90; one part = £90 ÷ 2 = £45; the whole amount is 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts, so 6 × £45 = £270. Answer: £270. The distractors: £540 comes from treating the £90 as the value of one part and multiplying it by the 6 parts; £180 comes from finding the £45 correctly but adding only the 1-part and 3-part shares and forgetting the middle share; £135 comes from multiplying £45 by 3 and giving the largest share instead of the total.
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: this is inverse proportion — fewer taps means longer, not shorter — so the number of taps × the time taken stays constant. Working: 6 × 20 = 120, and with 3 taps the time is 120 ÷ 3 = 40 minutes. So 3 taps take 40 minutes. Distractor 10 minutes comes from treating it as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 20 × 3 ÷ 6. Distractor 30 minutes comes from halving the number of taps and adding half the original time, 20 + 10, instead of doubling the time. Distractor 17 minutes comes from subtracting the number of taps removed, 3, directly from the original time, 20.
- (a) 8/5 — Scaling down from 8 people to 5 people uses the multiplier 5/8. To reverse this and scale back up from 5 people to 8 people, use the reciprocal of that multiplier: flip 5/8 to get 8/5. 5/8 comes from using the forward (scaling down) multiplier again, instead of reversing it. 3/5 comes from writing the difference in people (8 − 5 = 3) over 5, instead of using the reciprocal of 5/8. 25/64 comes from multiplying the forward multiplier by itself (5/8 × 5/8), instead of finding its reciprocal.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.