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) 9 m/s — The gradient of line P is 21 ÷ 3 = 7, so P has a rate of 7 m/s. The gradient of line Q is 45 ÷ 5 = 9, so Q has a rate of 9 m/s. Because 9 is greater than 7, line Q is the steeper line, with gradient 9 m/s. Taking line P's gradient instead of Q's gives 7 m/s, the less steep line. Subtracting the two lines' coordinates directly, (45 − 21) ÷ (5 − 3) = 24 ÷ 2 = 12 m/s, mixes points from different lines rather than using one line's own two points. Adding the two gradients, 7 + 9 = 16 m/s, treats 'steeper' as a total rather than a comparison.
- (c) 54 — Method: y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 18 ÷ 5 = 3.6. At x = 15: y = 3.6 × 15 = 54. Wrong options: 28 comes from adding the change in x (10) onto y instead of scaling; 6 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 5 × 18 = 90, then y = 90 ÷ 15 = 6); 60 comes from rounding the constant up to 4 instead of using 3.6.
- (a) 3 hours — Method: for a fixed pool the rate of flow multiplied by the time taken is constant, so multiplying the rate by a factor divides the time by that same factor. Working: tap B's rate is 2 times tap A's rate, so tap B's time is 6 ÷ 2 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 12 hours comes from multiplying the time by 2 as well, which treats the time as directly proportional to the rate and has the faster tap taking longer; 4 hours comes from reading ‘twice as fast’ additively, as two hours quicker, and working out 6 − 2 instead of scaling the time by a factor of 2; 1.5 hours comes from applying the factor of 2 twice, halving 6 to 3 and then halving again.
- (c) 9:15:21 — 6 : 10 : 14 simplifies to 3 : 5 : 7 (divide every part by 2). Multiplying every part of 3 : 5 : 7 by 3 gives 9 : 15 : 21, so 9 : 15 : 21 is equivalent to 6 : 10 : 14. Adding 2 to every part of 6 : 10 : 14 gives 8 : 12 : 16, which is not equivalent — ratios are equivalent when every part is multiplied by the same number, not when the same number is added to every part. Doubling only the first two parts, 6 × 2 = 12 and 10 × 2 = 20, but leaving the third part unchanged at 14, gives 12 : 20 : 14 — a scaling applied to two parts and not the third. Cancelling the first two parts correctly, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 10 ÷ 2 = 5, then treating the three numbers as a sequence and making the third part the sum of the first two, 3 + 5 = 8, gives 3 : 5 : 8 — the third part was never divided by 2 at all.
- (c) 180 pages — The gradient is (9 − 24) ÷ (300 − 0) = −15 ÷ 300 = −0.05, so the cartridge uses 0.05 ml of ink per page. At p = 300 there are 9 ml left. The extra pages before the cartridge is empty is 9 ÷ 0.05 = 180 pages. Giving 9 as the answer confuses the millilitres of ink remaining with the number of pages remaining — they are different quantities with different units. Multiplying instead of dividing, 9 × 0.05 = 0.45, does not undo the rate correctly. Working out the total number of pages a full cartridge lasts, 24 ÷ 0.05 = 480 pages, answers how many pages the cartridge prints in total from full, not how many more pages it can print from the 300-page point.
- (d) 1 : 1 — Sugar and butter together make 3 + 5 = 8 parts of the mixture. Comparing flour to this, 8 : 8, simplifies to 1 : 1. Giving 1 : 2 compares flour with the whole mixture (8 + 3 + 5 = 16 parts, giving 8 : 16 = 1 : 2) instead of with the rest of the mixture. Giving 3 : 5 is the ratio of sugar to butter, not of flour to the rest of the mixture. Giving 8 : 3 compares flour only with sugar, leaving butter out altogether.
- (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).
- (b) The 2.4 kg bag, since it costs £1.80 per kg compared with £1.90 per kg for the 1.5 kg bag. — To compare value for money, work out the cost per kilogram for each bag. 1.5 kg bag: £2.85 ÷ 1.5 = £1.90 per kg. 2.4 kg bag: £4.32 ÷ 2.4 = £1.80 per kg. Since £1.80 is less than £1.90, the 2.4 kg bag gives better value. The option comparing £2.85 with £4.32 directly is wrong because it compares the total prices, not the price per kilogram — a bigger bag naturally costs more in total even if it is better value. The option that names the 1.5 kg bag with £1.80 per kg and the 2.4 kg bag with £1.90 per kg has the correct unit prices but has swapped which bag they belong to. The option giving £1.19 per kg and £2.88 per kg comes from dividing each price by the wrong bag's mass (£2.85 ÷ 2.4 and £4.32 ÷ 1.5).
- (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.
- (d) £8262 — A fall of 15% is a multiplier of 0.85 and a fall of 10% is a multiplier of 0.9, and each multiplier acts on the value at the start of its own year. After year 1: 12000 × 0.85 = 10200. After year 2: 10200 × 0.9 = 9180. After year 3: 9180 × 0.9 = 8262. The value 3 years after the car was bought is £8262. Adding the percentages to make a single fall of 35% would be wrong, because the later falls are taken from smaller values.
- (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) 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.
- (d) y = 3x/4 — y : x = 3 : 4 means y/x = 3/4. Rearranging to make y the subject gives y = (3/4)x = 3x/4. A student who mixes up which quantity goes on top gets y = 4x/3. A student who treats the ratio numbers as the coefficient and constant of a linear equation instead of a proportional relationship gets y = 3x + 4. A student who mistakes the relationship for inverse proportion gets y = 3/(4x).
- (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.
- (a) It's an average over 20 days, which may miss the day-5 rate. — Method: a chord's gradient is the AVERAGE rate of change across the whole interval it spans; it only closely approximates the INSTANTANEOUS rate of change at a point inside that interval when the rate of change is roughly constant across the interval, which usually means the interval needs to be short. Working: here the chord spans 20 days while the point of interest, t = 5, is only a quarter of the way along it, so if the reservoir's level rose or fell at different rates over that time, the chord's gradient will not be close to the true gradient of the curve at t = 5 — this is the correct reason. Claiming the chord's gradient needs the water level at every day in between is wrong: a chord's gradient needs only the two endpoint values, at t = 0 and t = 20. Claiming a chord can only estimate the rate at its own endpoints is wrong: a chord between two points can be used to estimate the instantaneous rate of change at any point inside the interval, including one that is not an endpoint — that is exactly the technique being used here, and it is the SIZE of the interval that makes the estimate poor, not the fact that t = 5 is an interior point. Claiming the units do not match is wrong: the chord's gradient and the instantaneous rate of change are both measured in metres per day, so the units are the same. A chord is only a good estimate of an instantaneous rate when the interval it spans is short enough that the rate does not change much within it — always check how long the interval is compared with how far it is to the point you actually want.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.