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) 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.)
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 20 people/year — The gradient of a tangent to a graph at a point equals the instantaneous rate of change of the quantity there. A straight line's gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value between two points on it. Here the tangent passes through (2, 180) and (6, 260), so the change in population is 260 − 180 = 80 and the change in time is 6 − 2 = 4. The gradient is 80 ÷ 4 = 20. Reporting the change in population, 80, on its own is not a rate, because that growth happened over 4 years and has not been divided by them. Adding the two changes instead of dividing gives 80 + 4 = 84, which is not a rate. Subtracting the coordinates in the wrong order, (180 − 260) ÷ (6 − 2), gives −80 ÷ 4 = −20, the wrong sign. The instantaneous rate of change of the population at t = 4 is 20 people per year.
- (a) 4 hours — This is inverse proportion: more pumps take less time. Multiply the original numbers to find the total pump-hours needed: 2 × 10 = 20 pump-hours. Divide by the new number of pumps: 20 ÷ 5 = 4 hours. Working out 10 × 5 ÷ 2 = 25 hours treats it as direct proportion, as if more pumps needed more time. Stopping at 20 gives the total pump-hours, not the number of hours. Working out 10 − (5 − 2) = 7 hours subtracts the extra number of pumps straight from the number of hours, treating pumps and hours as the same kind of quantity. 5 pumps take 4 hours.
- (d) 25 minutes — Method: find the time for one kilometre, then multiply by the number of kilometres — the unitary method with a rate. Working: 10 ÷ 2 = 5 minutes per km, and 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from multiplying the 10 minutes by 2, the distance in the given rate, instead of by the scale factor 2.5; 50 minutes comes from multiplying 10 by 5, treating the 10 minutes as the time for a single kilometre; 15 minutes comes from adding the 5 km on to the 10 minutes, adding quantities that are not the same kind.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 100 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 7 − 3 = 4 parts, and this is worth 40 beads. Divide to find one part: 40 ÷ 4 = 10. The total number of parts is 7 + 3 = 10, so the total number of beads is 10 × 10 = 100. (40 is just the given difference between gold and silver, not the total. 70 is the number of gold beads only, using 7 parts. 30 is the number of silver beads only, using 3 parts.)
- (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.
- (c) 70 cm — Method: convert the real length to centimetres, then divide by the scale factor. Working: 84 m = 8400 cm. 8400 ÷ 120 = 70 cm. Wrong options: 0.7 cm comes from dividing 84 by 120 without converting metres to centimetres; 1,008,000 cm comes from multiplying instead of dividing (8400 × 120); 7 cm comes from converting 84 m to 840 cm (using ×10 instead of ×100) before dividing.
- (c) 6.00 m — Method: the ratio of height to shadow length is the same for both objects. Working: road sign height ÷ shadow = 3 ÷ 5 = 0.6. Lamppost height = 0.6 × 10 = 6.00 m. Wrong options: 16.67 m comes from inverting the ratio, using shadow ÷ height instead of height ÷ shadow (10 × 5 ÷ 3); 8.00 m comes from adding the difference between the two shadow lengths to the road sign's height instead of scaling (3 + (10 − 5)); 1.50 m comes from multiplying by the ratio of the two shadow lengths the wrong way round (3 × 5 ÷ 10).
- (a) £150 — Value after year 1: £800 × 0.75 = £600. Value after year 2: £600 × 0.75 = £450. The loss during the second year alone is £600 − £450 = £150. £450 comes from giving the value remaining after 2 years, not the amount lost during the second year. £200 comes from working out the loss during the first year instead of the second: £800 − £600 = £200. £350 comes from working out the total loss over both years instead of just the second year's loss: £800 − £450 = £350.
- (b) 4 : 25 — For similar shapes, the ratio of areas is the ratio of lengths squared: 2² : 5² = 4 : 25. 2 : 5 comes from using the perimeter ratio itself as the area ratio, without squaring it at all. 8 : 125 comes from cubing each part instead of squaring (2³ : 5³) — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 4 : 5 comes from squaring only the first part of the ratio (2² = 4), and leaving the second part unsquared.
- (c) Yes, correct, because 24 ÷ 8 × 3 = 9. — Method: divide the count you know by its ratio part to find the value of one part, then multiply by the part you want. Working: one part = 24 ÷ 8 = 3 counters, so green = 3 × 3 = 9 counters, and the student is correct. Dividing 24 by 3 instead of 8 gives 24 ÷ 3 × 8 = 64, the ratio parts the wrong way round. Stopping after 24 ÷ 8 = 3 gives 3, forgetting to multiply by the green ratio part. Adding 24 + 3 = 27 confuses adding a ratio part with scaling by it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.