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
- (d) Faster at t = 8s — still accelerating — The gradient of a tangent on a distance-time graph is the instantaneous speed, in m/s. At t = 2 seconds the speed is 6 m/s; at t = 8 seconds it is 9.5 m/s, which is faster, so the sprinter is still accelerating between these two times. Saying the sprinter is slower at t = 8s reverses the comparison — 9.5 is greater than 6, not less. Writing 9.5 − 6 = 3.5 and calling this 'metres further covered' turns the difference of two speeds into a distance, which the units do not support: a difference of two speeds is itself a speed, not a distance. Taking 9.5 m/s, the larger of the two instantaneous speeds, as the average speed for the whole race confuses a speed at one instant with an average over the whole distance, which would need the total distance and total time, not two tangent gradients.
- (d) 3/5 — Convert both times to minutes: 2 hours 15 minutes = 135 minutes; 3 hours 45 minutes = 225 minutes. Put the train time over the bus time: 135/225. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 45: 135÷45 = 3, 225÷45 = 5, giving 3/5. (5/3 comes from writing the times the wrong way round. 2/5 comes from finding the difference, 225 − 135 = 90 minutes, and writing it as a fraction of the bus time, 90/225. 3/8 comes from comparing the train time to the total time for both journeys, 135/360.)
- (a) 4 : 15 — Convert to the same unit first: 1.5 kg = 1500 g, since 1 kg = 1000 g. This gives the ratio 400 : 1500. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 100, to get 4 : 15. Giving 40 : 150 divides by 10 only, which is not the highest common factor, so it is not fully simplified. Giving 15 : 4 swaps the order. Giving 4 : 1.5 has not converted 1.5 kg into grams, so the two parts are not measured in the same unit.
- (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.)
- (c) 1.25 cm — Method: find the real length using the first map's scale, then use the second map's scale to find its drawn length. Working: real length = 5 × 20 000 = 100 000 cm. On the second map: 100 000 ÷ 80 000 = 1.25 cm. Wrong options: 20 cm comes from inverting the ratio of the two scales (5 × 80 000 ÷ 20 000); 5 cm comes from wrongly assuming the length looks the same on both maps; 12.5 cm comes from dropping a zero from the second scale factor and dividing by 8 000 instead of 80 000 (100 000 ÷ 8 000).
- (d) 19% — Method: write each decrease as a multiplier, multiply the multipliers, then compare the result with 100%. Working: a 10% decrease is a multiplier of 0.9, so the two reductions together give 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81; the final price is 81% of the original, so the price has fallen by 100% − 81% = 19%. Answer: an overall decrease of 19%. The distractors: 20% comes from adding the two reductions, 10% + 10%, which charges the second 10% against the original price instead of against the already reduced price; 21% comes from using the increase multiplier by mistake, since 1.1 × 1.1 = 1.21, and reading that 21% as a decrease; 81% is the percentage of the original price still being paid, not the percentage taken off.
- (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) £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) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
- (a) y is always 4 times x. — Check the multiplier for each pair: 12 ÷ 3 = 4, 20 ÷ 5 = 4, 32 ÷ 8 = 4 — the same multiplier every time, so y is always 4 times x. 'x is always 4 times y' comes from writing the multiplier the wrong way round. 'y is always x plus 9' only works for the first pair (3 + 9 = 12); it gives 14 for x = 5 and 17 for x = 8, not 20 and 32. 'y is always double x, plus 6' also only works for the first pair (3 × 2 + 6 = 12); it gives 16 for x = 5, not 20.
- (c) 500 g — Method: a concentration of 10% is the ratio 10:100, and the salt and the solution in the beaker must be in that same ratio, so write 10:100 = 50:m and scale. Working: 50 ÷ 10 = 5, so the salt is 5 times the 10 of the ratio; the solution must be 5 times the 100 of the ratio, giving 5 × 100 = 500 g. Answer: 500 g. The distractors: 5 g comes from working out 10% of 50 g, which treats the 50 g as the whole solution when it is the salt inside it; 450 g comes from scaling correctly and then taking the 50 g of salt away, which gives the mass of water rather than the mass of the whole solution; 5000 g comes from dividing by 0.01 instead of 0.1, that is from writing 10% as 0.01.
- (c) Falling at £950 per year — The gradient of a tangent on a value-age graph is a rate, in pounds per year, so −950 means the van's value is falling at £950 per year at that instant. Writing this as 950% per year mistakes a rate measured in pounds per year for a percentage — the units of a gradient come from the units on the two axes, £ and years, not from a percentage. Saying the value 'falls by £950 over the next year' treats the instantaneous rate at age 2 as if it stayed constant for a whole year, which finds an average future change, not the instantaneous rate at age 2 itself. Reading the sign the wrong way round gives 'rising at £950 per year', which would mean the van is gaining value. Always match the units of a gradient to the units on the two axes of the graph.
- (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.
- (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) 3.375 — Method: the volume scale factor between similar shapes is the length scale factor cubed, not the length scale factor itself. Working: the length scale factor is 12 ÷ 8 = 1.5, and 1.5³ = 3.375. Answer: 3.375. Jayden's answer, 1.5, is only the LENGTH scale factor — he never cubed it to get the volume scale factor. 2.25 comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, which would give the area scale factor. 4.5 comes from multiplying the length scale factor by 3 (the number of dimensions) instead of cubing it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.