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) 7 — The average rate of change of y with respect to x over an interval is the change in y divided by the change in x between its two endpoints — the gradient of the chord joining them, not a rate at a single point. At x = 1: 2 × 1 = 2, so y = 1 + 2 = 3. At x = 4: 2 × 4 = 8, so y = 16 + 8 = 24. The change in y is 24 − 3 = 21 and the change in x is 4 − 1 = 3, so the average rate of change is 21 ÷ 3 = 7. Reporting the change in y, 21, on its own is not a rate of change, because it has not been divided by the 3 units of x over which it happened. Reporting 3 is not a rate either — 3 is the width of the interval, and also the value of y at x = 1, and neither of those measures how fast y is changing. Subtracting in the wrong order gives −21 ÷ 3 = −7, the wrong sign. The average rate of change of y with respect to x over the interval is 7.
- (b) 19.0 g/cm³ — Density = mass ÷ volume. 342.6 ÷ 18 = 19.0333…, which rounds to 19.0 g/cm³ (1 d.p.). 6166.8 g/cm³ comes from multiplying the mass by the volume instead of dividing (342.6 × 18). 324.6 g/cm³ comes from subtracting the volume from the mass (342.6 − 18) instead of dividing. 0.1 g/cm³ comes from dividing the volume by the mass instead of the mass by the volume (18 ÷ 342.6 = 0.0525…, rounded to 1 d.p.).
- (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.
- (b) 75 — The exchange rate is constant: k = 46 ÷ 40 = 1.15 euros per pound. For £65, the number of euros is 1.15 × 65 = 74.75, which rounds to 75 euros. Getting 74 comes from rounding 74.75 down instead of to the nearest whole number. Getting 57 comes from using the reciprocal rate (40 ÷ 46) instead of 46 ÷ 40. Getting 71 comes from adding the difference between 65 and 40 (25) onto 46 instead of using the proportional rate.
- (d) 25% — Method: percentage decrease = decrease ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the reduction is £60 − £45 = £15, and 15 ÷ 60 = 0.25, so 0.25 × 100 = 25%. Answer: 25%. The distractors: 15% comes from quoting the £15 reduction as though pounds and per cent were the same thing; 33% comes from dividing the £15 by the new price £45 instead of by the original £60, which gives 33% to the nearest per cent; 75% is the new price written as a percentage of the old one, which is what is still paid rather than what has been taken off.
- (d) 7/4 — A part-to-part ratio a : b gives the fraction a/b when the first quantity is written as a fraction of the second, so 7 : 4 gives 7/4. Writing 4/7 puts the parts the wrong way round — blue as a fraction of red, not red as a fraction of blue. Writing 7/11 uses the total number of counters, 7 + 4 = 11, as the denominator instead of the number of blue counters — that is red as a fraction of the whole bag, not red as a fraction of blue. Writing 11/7 has both the wrong denominator and the parts inverted.
- (c) They are in direct proportion, because y ÷ x = 2.5 for both pairs. — Testing direct proportion means checking that y ÷ x is the same for every pair: 15 ÷ 6 = 2.5 and 25 ÷ 10 = 2.5, so the quantities are in direct proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because x + y differs uses addition, which is not the correct test for proportion. Saying they are not in proportion because y − x differs also uses the wrong test — subtraction, not division. Saying they are in proportion because x × y is 90 and 250 uses multiplication, which is the test for inverse proportion, and the two products are not even equal to each other, so this option also contradicts itself.
- (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.
- (c) 1.2 cm/s — To estimate an instantaneous rate of change at a point from a table of readings, use the chord that spans the point symmetrically — equal steps either side — because the over-estimate on one side and the under-estimate on the other largely cancel. Here that is the chord from t = 10 to t = 30. The change in depth is 56 − 32 = 24 and the change in time is 30 − 10 = 20, so the estimate is 24 ÷ 20 = 1.2 cm/s. The one-sided chord from t = 20 to t = 30 gives (56 − 45) ÷ (30 − 20) = 11 ÷ 10 = 1.1 cm/s, which estimates the rate somewhere between t = 20 and t = 30 rather than at t = 20 itself. Dividing the 20-second change in depth by the 10-second gap between consecutive readings gives 24 ÷ 10 = 2.4, mixing the change from one interval with the time from another. Reporting the change in depth, 24, on its own is not a rate at all, because it has not been divided by a time. The best estimate of the instantaneous rate of change of depth at t = 20 is 1.2 cm/s.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
- (c) 4 km — Since signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, S = k/d². Using d = 2, S = 20: 2² = 4, so 20 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 20 × 4 = 80. The equation is S = 80/d². When S = 5: d² = 80 ÷ 5 = 16, so d = 4 (taking the positive root, since distance cannot be negative). Stopping at d² = 16 without taking the square root leaves 16, the square of the distance, not the distance itself. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to distance itself, rather than to its square, gives k = 20 × 2 = 40 and then d = 40 ÷ 5 = 8, a different relationship. Multiplying by S instead of dividing by it when isolating d² gives d² = 80 × 5 = 400 and d = 20, the wrong operation. The distance at which the signal strength is 5 units is 4 km.
- (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.
- (c) 16 cm — Corresponding sides of similar triangles are all in the same ratio. Use the pair whose lengths are both known: the scale factor from triangle ABC to triangle PQR is 12 ÷ 6 = 2. Since QR corresponds to BC, multiply BC by that scale factor: 8 × 2 = 16, so QR = 16 cm.
- (b) 1.5 km — Multiply the map length by the scale factor: 6 × 25000 = 150000 cm. Convert to kilometres, using 100 cm = 1 m and 1000 m = 1 km, so 100000 cm = 1 km: 150000 ÷ 100000 = 1.5 km. (1500 km comes from converting only as far as metres, 150000 ÷ 100 = 1500 m, and then writing kilometres on the end. 15 km comes from dividing by 10000 instead of 100000. 0.15 km comes from dividing by 1000000 instead of 100000.)
- (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.