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
- (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
- (d) 3/2 — Work out the number of altos: 40% of 30 = 12. The rest are sopranos, so there are 30 − 12 = 18 sopranos. Form the fraction 18/12; both numbers share a factor of 6, so 18 ÷ 6 = 3 and 12 ÷ 6 = 2, giving 3/2. 2/3 comes from writing the fraction the wrong way round, as altos over sopranos (12/18). 3/5 comes from comparing the sopranos with the whole choir (18/30), instead of with the altos. 7/3 comes from miscalculating 30 − 12 as 28 instead of 18, then forming 28/12.
- (b) 20 — The gradient is the change in p divided by the change in t: (90 − 30) ÷ (5 − 2) = 60 ÷ 3 = 20. Choosing 0.05 comes from dividing the change in t by the change in p, the wrong way round (3 ÷ 60). Choosing −20 comes from subtracting the coordinates in the wrong order for one part of the calculation, for example (30 − 90) ÷ (5 − 2), giving a negative value. Choosing 18 comes from dividing the second p-coordinate by the second t-coordinate directly (90 ÷ 5) instead of using the change between the two points.
- (c) Map A, where the distance is 40 cm — 10 km = 1,000,000 cm. On Map A: 1000000 ÷ 25000 = 40 cm. On Map B: 1000000 ÷ 50000 = 20 cm. Since 40 cm is longer than 20 cm, the same real distance appears longer on Map A, the map with the smaller scale number. 'Map B, where the distance is 20 cm' has the correct working for Map B but names the wrong map as the one with the longer length. 'Map A, where the distance is 20 cm' correctly identifies Map A but pairs it with Map B's length. 'Map B, where the distance is 40 cm' correctly identifies Map A's length but attaches it to the wrong map.
- (b) 13/2 — Put the number of pages in the novel over the number of pages in the comic: 312/48. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 24: 312÷24 = 13, 48÷24 = 2, giving 13/2. (2/13 comes from writing the page counts the wrong way round. 11/2 comes from finding the difference in the page counts, 312 − 48 = 264, and writing it as a fraction of the comic's page count, 264/48. 13/15 comes from comparing the novel's page count to the total number of pages in both books, 312/360.)
- (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.
- (d) 3 : 2 — Convert both amounts to pence: £3.60 = 360p and £2.40 = 240p, giving the ratio 360 : 240. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 120, to get 3 : 2. Giving 360 : 240 has not been simplified at all. Giving 2 : 3 swaps the order. Giving 36 : 24 has been divided by 10, which is a common factor but not the highest one, so it is not yet in simplest form.
- (c) £22.50 — Method: find the cost of 1 kg, then multiply by the mass wanted. Working: £36 ÷ 2.4 = £15 per kilogram, and 1.5 × £15 = £22.50. Answer: £22.50. The distractors: £15 is the price of 1 kg, which is the first step and not what the question asks for; £54 comes from multiplying the £36 by 1.5 without first reducing it to a price per kilogram; £57.60 comes from using the scale factor upside down, multiplying £36 by 2.4 ÷ 1.5 = 1.6 instead of by 1.5 ÷ 2.4.
- (a) £7.80 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ number of hours. £58.50 ÷ 7.5 = £7.80 per hour. £438.75 comes from multiplying the pay by the hours instead of dividing (£58.50 × 7.5). £0.13 comes from dividing the hours by the pay instead of the pay by the hours (7.5 ÷ 58.50). £51.00 comes from subtracting the hours from the pay (£58.50 − 7.5) instead of dividing.
- (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) 2 km — Method: multiply the map distance by the scale to get the real distance in centimetres, then convert centimetres to kilometres using 100 cm = 1 m and 1000 m = 1 km. Working: 4 × 50 000 = 200 000 cm; 200 000 ÷ 100 = 2000 m; 2000 ÷ 1000 = 2. Answer: 2 km. The distractors: 200 km comes from dividing the 200 000 cm by 1000 in a single step, as if a kilometre were 1000 cm rather than the 100 000 cm it is; 20 km comes from converting to metres correctly, 200 000 ÷ 100 = 2000 m, and then dividing those metres by 100 instead of by 1000; 0.2 km comes from dividing by 1000 to reach metres, as if a metre were 1000 cm, and then dividing by 1000 again, so 200 000 is divided by 1 000 000 altogether.
- (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) 27 : 64 — For similar solids, the ratio of volumes is the ratio of lengths cubed: 3³ : 4³ = 27 : 64. 3 : 4 comes from using the height ratio itself as the volume ratio, without cubing it at all. 9 : 16 comes from squaring each part instead of cubing (3² : 4²) — squaring is the rule for area, not volume. 27 : 4 comes from cubing only the first part of the ratio (3³ = 27), and leaving the second part uncubed.
- (d) 3 : 5 — Simplify the area ratio: 18 : 50 divides by 2 to give 9 : 25. Areas scale with the square of the length ratio, so take the square root of each part: the square root of 9 is 3, and the square root of 25 is 5, giving a side length ratio of 3 : 5. Giving 5 : 3 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger. Giving 9 : 25 is the simplified area ratio, without square-rooting it. Giving 18 : 50 is the area ratio before it has even been simplified.
- (b) Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00 — Provider X's gradient is (35 − 15) ÷ 100 = 0.2, so cost = 15 + 0.2 × 40 = 15 + 8 = £23.00. Provider Y's gradient is (45 − 5) ÷ 100 = 0.4, so cost = 5 + 0.4 × 40 = 5 + 16 = £21.00. £21.00 is less than £23.00, so Provider Y is cheaper: 'Provider Y — £21.00 against Provider X's £23.00'. Getting both costs right but naming Provider X as cheaper compares the two numbers the wrong way round — £23.00 is more than £21.00, not less. Comparing only the fixed fees, £15.00 and £5.00, ignores the cost of the 40 gigabytes actually used. Reading off the costs at 100 gigabytes, £35.00 and £45.00, directly from the graph answers a different usage from the 40 gigabytes the question asks about.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.