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) 10,800 kg — Method: since the model and the real container are similar and made of the same material, mass scales with volume, so the mass scale factor is the length scale factor cubed. Working: 30³ = 27,000, so the real container's mass is 400 × 27,000 = 10,800,000 g, which is 10,800,000 ÷ 1,000 = 10,800 kg. Answer: 10,800 kg. 12 kg comes from using the length scale factor directly, 400 × 30 = 12,000 g, without cubing it. 360 kg comes from squaring the length scale factor instead of cubing it, 400 × 30² = 360,000 g. 10,800,000 kg comes from correctly cubing the scale factor but then forgetting to convert the mass from grams into kilograms.
- (a) 6 — Method: for inverse proportion the product xy is the same for every pair, so find that product and use it to work back to the missing value. Working: xy = 2 × 15 = 30, so when x = 5 the equation 5y = 30 gives y = 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: 6. The distractors: 37.5 comes from treating the pair as direct proportion and scaling y up with x, 15 × 5 ÷ 2, although in inverse proportion y falls as x rises; 30 is the constant product itself, given as a value of y rather than used to find one; 12 comes from additive thinking — x rises by 3, so 3 is taken off y — which would make the two quantities differ by a constant instead of multiplying to one.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) Profit is decreasing by £10 per £1 rise in price. — The gradient of a tangent gives the instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price, found from the change in profit divided by the change in price between two points on the tangent. Here the tangent passes through (12, 540) and (18, 480), so the change in profit is 480 − 540 = −60 and the change in price is 18 − 12 = 6. The gradient is −60 ÷ 6 = −10. A negative gradient means profit is decreasing as price increases, so profit is decreasing at an instantaneous rate of £10 for every £1 rise in price. Subtracting the profits in the wrong order, 540 − 480 = 60, and dividing by the same change in price, 60 ÷ 6 = 10, gives a positive value and the wrong direction — profit is not increasing at £15. Stopping after finding only the change in profit, 480 − 540 = −60, without dividing by the change in price, is not a rate at all. Reading off the change in price, 6, and calling it the rate gives £6 per £1 rise in price, but 6 is only the width of the price interval — it is not a change in profit at all, and profit falls across that interval, so the direction is wrong too. The instantaneous rate of change of profit with respect to price at £15 is a decrease of £10 per £1 rise in price.
- (d) The candle's height decreases by 0.3 cm every minute. — A negative gradient means the quantity on the vertical axis decreases as the quantity on the horizontal axis increases. The size of the gradient, 0.3, gives the amount of decrease per minute.
- (d) 12 — First find the y-values at the two ends of the chord. At x = 2, y = 2 × 2² + 5 = 2 × 4 + 5 = 8 + 5 = 13. At x = 4, y = 2 × 4² + 5 = 2 × 16 + 5 = 32 + 5 = 37. The gradient of the chord is the change in y divided by the change in x: 37 − 13 = 24, then 24 ÷ (4 − 2) = 24 ÷ 2 = 12. Stopping after finding the change in y and not dividing by the change in x gives 24, which is not a gradient at all. Inverting the fraction, change in x divided by change in y, gives 2 ÷ 24 ≈ 0.08. Averaging the two y-values instead of finding the change between them gives (13 + 37) ÷ 2 = 50 ÷ 2 = 25. A gradient is always change in y over change in x — never the other way round, and never a single y-value.
- (c) 2:3 — The white paint is 5 − 2 = 3 litres. The ratio of blue paint to white paint is 2 : 3, which has no common factor, so it is already in simplest form. Getting 2 : 5 compares the blue paint to the total amount of shade instead of to the white paint. Getting 3 : 2 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 5 : 3 uses the total amount of shade instead of the blue paint as the first part.
- (c) £3,200 — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the first investor's amount, then work out the second investor's share before adding both together. Working: £1,200 is 3 parts, so one part is £1,200 ÷ 3 = £400. The second investor's share is 5 × £400 = £2,000, and the total is £1,200 + £2,000 = £3,200. So the total invested is £3,200. Distractor £2,000 is only the second investor's share, without adding the first investor's £1,200. Distractor £2,400 comes from doubling the first investor's amount instead of using the ratio. Distractor £6,000 comes from multiplying £1,200 by 5 directly instead of first finding the value of one part.
- (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.)
- (b) 12 days — This is inverse proportion: fewer painters take longer. Multiply the original numbers to find the total painter-days needed: 8 × 6 = 48 painter-days. Divide by the new number of painters: 48 ÷ 4 = 12 days. Working out 6 × 4 ÷ 8 = 3 days treats it as direct proportion, as if fewer painters needed less time. Stopping at 48 gives the total painter-days, not the number of days. Working out 6 + (8 − 4) = 10 days adds the change in the number of painters straight onto the number of days, treating painters and days as the same kind of quantity. 4 painters take 12 days.
- (a) 4 — Method: for inverse proportion, x × y always stays the same value. Working: when x = 5 and y = 8, the constant is 5 × 8 = 40. When x = 10, y = 40 ÷ 10 = 4. So y = 4. Distractor 16 comes from treating the relationship as direct proportion instead of inverse, working out 8 × 10 ÷ 5. Distractor 3 comes from assuming y decreases by the same amount that x increases, an additive rather than proportional idea. Distractor 0.8 comes from dividing the given y-value, 8, by the new x-value, 10, without first finding the constant.
- (c) 5 hours — Method: measure the job in decorator-hours, which is in the same ratio as the number of rooms, then share the decorator-hours between the decorators available. Working: 5 decorators × 6 hours = 30 decorator-hours for 3 rooms, so one room takes 30 ÷ 3 = 10 decorator-hours; 5 rooms take 5 × 10 = 50 decorator-hours; shared between 10 decorators that is 50 ÷ 10 = 5 hours. Answer: 5 hours. The distractors: 3 hours comes from halving the 6 hours because the number of decorators doubles, while forgetting that there are also more rooms to paint; 10 hours comes from scaling the 6 hours up for the rooms only, 6 × 5 ÷ 3, and leaving the workforce at 5 decorators; 6 hours comes from assuming that doubling the decorators and increasing the rooms cancel each other out, which they do not, because the rooms rise by a factor of 5/3 and the workforce by a factor of 2.
- (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.
- (c) 3 — Method: find the height scale factor, cube it to find the volume (and coverage) scale factor, use it to find one large sack's coverage, then divide the total lawn area by this and round up to a whole number of sacks. Working: height scale factor = 40 ÷ 20 = 2, so coverage scale factor = 2³ = 8, and each large sack covers 30 × 8 = 240 m². 500 ÷ 240 = 2.08…, which rounds UP to 3 whole sacks. Answer: 3. 2 comes from correctly finding that each large sack covers 240 m², but then rounding 500 ÷ 240 down instead of up, which would leave part of the lawn untreated. 5 comes from squaring the height scale factor (2² = 4) instead of cubing it, giving a coverage of only 30 × 4 = 120 m² per sack. 17 comes from forgetting to scale the coverage at all and dividing 500 by the smaller sack's coverage of 30 m².
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.