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 : 15 — Convert to the same unit first: 1.5 kg = 1500 g, since 1 kg = 1000 g. This gives the ratio 400 : 1500. Divide both parts by their highest common factor, 100, to get 4 : 15. Giving 40 : 150 divides by 10 only, which is not the highest common factor, so it is not fully simplified. Giving 15 : 4 swaps the order. Giving 4 : 1.5 has not converted 1.5 kg into grams, so the two parts are not measured in the same unit.
- (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.
- (b) 62.5% — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8. Apples make up 5 parts, so the percentage is 5/8 × 100 = 62.5%. A student who finds the oranges' share instead gets 3/8 × 100 = 37.5%. A student who assumes an even split gets 50%. A student who inverts the fraction gets 8/5 × 100 = 160%.
- (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) £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.
- (d) 3/5 — Convert both times to minutes: 2 hours 15 minutes = 135 minutes; 3 hours 45 minutes = 225 minutes. Put the train time over the bus time: 135/225. Divide both numbers by their highest common factor, 45: 135÷45 = 3, 225÷45 = 5, giving 3/5. (5/3 comes from writing the times the wrong way round. 2/5 comes from finding the difference, 225 − 135 = 90 minutes, and writing it as a fraction of the bus time, 90/225. 3/8 comes from comparing the train time to the total time for both journeys, 135/360.)
- (d) £117.60 — Add the hours worked over the two days: 6 + 4.5 = 10.5 hours. Multiply by the rate of pay: 10.5 × £11.20 = £117.60. (£67.20 is Monday's pay only. £50.40 is Tuesday's pay only. £106.40 comes from mistakenly adding the hours as 6 + 3.5 = 9.5 — misreading Tuesday's 4.5 hours as 3.5 — and then multiplying by £11.20.)
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 12 — Speed × time is constant: k = 20 × 15 = 300. At 25 pages per minute, the time is 300 ÷ 25 = 12 minutes. Getting 18.75 comes from treating speed and time as directly proportional and working out 15 × 25 ÷ 20 instead of dividing k by the new speed. Getting 20 comes from adding the increase in speed (25 − 20 = 5) onto the time (15 + 5 = 20). Getting 10 comes from subtracting that same increase in speed from the time (15 − 5 = 10).
- (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
- (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
- (d) 2748 — A 7% increase each year means the value becomes 100% + 7% = 107% of the previous year's value, and 107% = 1.07, so the multiplier is 1.07. Multiply by 1.07 for each of the 2 years: 2400 × 1.07 × 1.07 = 2747.76, which rounds to 2748. (2736 comes from using simple growth instead of compound: 2400 + 2 × (2400 × 0.07) = 2736. 2568 is the population after only 1 year, 2400 × 1.07, forgetting the second year's growth. 2747 comes from rounding 2747.76 down instead of up to the nearest whole number.)
- (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) £7060 — A 6% decrease each year means the value becomes 100% − 6% = 94% of the previous year's value, and 94% = 0.94, so the multiplier is 0.94. Apply it once for each of the 3 years: £8500 × 0.94 = £7990 after 1 year, £7990 × 0.94 = £7510.60 after 2 years, £7510.60 × 0.94 = £7059.96 after 3 years, which rounds to £7060 to the nearest pound. (£6970 comes from using simple depreciation instead of compound, taking 6% of the original £8500 three times: £8500 − 3 × £510 = £6970. £7990 is the value after only 1 year, forgetting the remaining 2 years. £7511 is the value after only 2 years, £8500 × 0.94² = £7510.60, forgetting the third year.)
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.