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) 27.1 cm — The model length is 20.6 ÷ 76 = 0.271052... metres. Converting to centimetres by multiplying by 100 gives 27.1052..., which rounds to 27.1 cm. Forgetting to convert metres to centimetres leaves the answer as 0.271052... metres, which rounds to 0.3 cm if the unit is simply relabelled. Multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 when converting metres to centimetres gives 271.052..., which rounds to 271.1 cm. Multiplying by 76 instead of dividing, 20.6 × 76 = 1565.6, uses the scale factor the wrong way round — that would be the real length if the model were 20.6 units long, not the other way round.
- (c) 1.05 litres — Method: find the value of one part of the ratio from the total volume, then find the share for pineapple juice. Working: the ratio 5:3:2 has 5 + 3 + 2 = 10 parts, so one part is 3.5 ÷ 10 = 0.35 litres, and the pineapple juice is 3 × 0.35 = 1.05 litres. So 1.05 litres of pineapple juice is needed. Distractor 1.75 litres is the volume of orange juice, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.7 litres is the volume of lemonade, not pineapple juice. Distractor 0.35 litres is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 3.
- (d) 7/3 — Put the kettle's energy over the toaster's energy: 2.1/0.9. Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 21/9. Divide both by their highest common factor, 3: 21÷3 = 7, 9÷3 = 3, giving 7/3. (3/7 comes from writing the energy values the wrong way round. 4/3 comes from finding the difference, 2.1 − 0.9 = 1.2 kWh, and writing it as a fraction of the toaster's energy, 1.2/0.9. 7/10 comes from comparing the kettle's energy to the total energy used by both appliances, 2.1/3.0.)
- (a) 1.5 km — Multiply the map length by the scale: 6 × 25 000 = 150 000 cm. Convert to kilometres: 150 000 cm = 1.5 km. Dividing by only 1000 instead of the full conversion when changing units gives 150 km, a hundred times too large. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 6 × 2500 = 15 000 cm = 0.15 km, a hundred times too small. Leaving the answer as 150 000 without converting units at all, and calling it 150 000 km, mistakes centimetres for kilometres completely.
- (c) £136 — 5% interest each year means the value becomes 100% + 5% = 105% of the previous year's value, and 105% = 1.05, so the multiplier is 1.05. Account A: £3200 × 1.05 × 1.05 = £3528. Account B (simple interest): £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.03) = £3392. The difference is £3528 − £3392 = £136. (£128 comes from working out Account A with simple interest too, instead of compound: £3200 + 2 × (£3200 × 0.05) = £3520, then £3520 − £3392 = £128. £3528 is the value of Account A on its own, not the difference between the two accounts. £3392 is the value of Account B on its own, not the difference.)
- (d) 2:5 — The ratio of the y-values equals the ratio of the coefficients of x, since x cancels: 2x : 5x = 2 : 5.
- (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.
- (b) £52 — Method: the difference between the two ratio numbers tells you how many parts the £39 difference represents. Working: the difference in parts is 7 − 4 = 3, and this represents £39, so one part is £39 ÷ 3 = £13. Josh's savings are 4 × £13 = £52. So Josh has £52. Distractor £91 is Mia's savings, not Josh's. Distractor £39 comes from using the given £39 difference as the final answer, without scaling it to Josh's number of parts. Distractor £13 is the value of one part, found correctly but never multiplied by 4.
- (b) 12 — The difference between the parts of the ratio is 5 − 2 = 3 parts, and this is worth 18. Divide to find one part: 18 ÷ 3 = 6. Cats have 2 parts: 2 × 6 = 12. (30 is the number of dogs, using 5 parts instead of 2. 6 is the value of one part — the number of cats is 2 lots of this, not just one. 9 comes from dividing 18 by 2 and stopping there, instead of dividing by the difference in parts, 3, and then multiplying by 2.)
- (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.
- (b) 7.2 m — Multiply the model wingspan by the scale factor: 15 × 48 = 720. This is in centimetres, and 720 cm = 7.2 m, since 1 m = 100 cm. Giving 0.31 m divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (15 ÷ 48 ≈ 0.31), scaling the model down rather than the real aircraft up. Giving 72 m converts centimetres to metres by dividing by 10 instead of 100. Giving 0.72 m converts by dividing by 1000 instead of 100.
- (d) £3.60 per component — The gradient of a cost-against-components graph has units of pounds per component, since cost is measured in pounds and the horizontal axis counts components. So 3.60 means it costs an extra £3.60 to produce one more component at that point. Calling it '£3.60 total cost' confuses the gradient, a rate, with the y-value on the graph, which is the total cost itself. Giving it as 3.60 components per pound swaps which axis is on top, giving the units of the reciprocal gradient, not the gradient itself. Turning 3.60 into a percentage invents a unit that has no basis in the graph's axes — a gradient here is a number of pounds, not a percentage. Always build the gradient's units from the two axes' own units, in the order y-axis over x-axis.
- (c) 20 cm — Convert 5 km to centimetres: 5 km = 5000 m = 500 000 cm. Divide by the scale factor: 500 000 ÷ 25 000 = 20, giving 20 cm. Converting only as far as metres, 5000 ÷ 25 000 = 0.2, gives 0.2 cm — the conversion to centimetres was never finished. Dropping a zero in the division gives 2 cm, ten times too small. Misreading the scale as 1 : 2500 instead of 1 : 25 000 gives 500 000 ÷ 2500 = 200 cm, ten times too big.
- (c) 8 m — Method: in the same sunlight every object has its height and its shadow in the same ratio, so write 2:3 = h:12, find the multiplier that takes 3 to 12 and apply it to the height. Working: 12 ÷ 3 = 4, so the tree's shadow is 4 times the post's shadow; the height must be scaled by the same 4, giving 4 × 2 = 8 m. Answer: 8 m. The distractors: 18 m comes from setting up the proportion upside down, 12 ÷ 2 × 3, which scales by shadow over height instead of height over shadow; 24 m comes from multiplying the 12 m shadow by the post's height of 2 m and never dividing by the post's shadow of 3 m; 4 m is the scale factor 12 ÷ 3, given as a length instead of being used to scale the 2 m post.
- (c) 20% — Method: percentage increase = (increase ÷ original) × 100. Working: the increase is 54 − 45 = 9, and 9 ÷ 45 = 0.2, so the percentage increase is 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: 20%. The distractors: 9% comes from writing the actual increase as a percentage; 16.7% comes from dividing by the new value 54 instead of the original 45; 120% is the multiplier 1.2 written as a change rather than the change itself.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.