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
- (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) £3.60 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.
- (a) £11.70 — Rate of pay = total pay ÷ hours worked, so £105.30 ÷ 9 = £11.70 per hour. Working out £105.30 − 9 = £96.30 subtracts the number of hours from the total pay instead of dividing. Working out £105.30 × 9 = £947.70 multiplies total pay by hours worked instead of dividing. Misplacing the decimal point in the correct answer gives £117.00 instead of £11.70. Maya's rate of pay is £11.70 per hour.
- (c) 48 mm — Method: extension = k × force, where k = extension ÷ force. Working: k = 12 ÷ 5 = 2.4 mm per N. At 20 N: extension = 2.4 × 20 = 48 mm. Wrong options: 32 mm comes from adding the extension and force numbers instead of scaling (12 + 20); 3 mm comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (12 × 5 ÷ 20); 36 mm comes from using an incorrect scale factor of 3 between the forces instead of the correct factor of 4 (20 ÷ 5).
- (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
- (d) The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g — Work out the cost per 100 g of each box. 750 g box: 270p ÷ 7.5 = 36p per 100 g. 500 g box: 195p ÷ 5 = 39p per 100 g. The lower cost per 100 g is the better value, so the 750 g box at 36p per 100 g is the answer. Choosing the 500 g box at 39p per 100 g gets the maths right but picks the higher unit price, not realising a smaller cost per 100 g is the better deal. Choosing the 500 g box because £1.95 is lower than £2.70 compares the total prices without allowing for the different pack sizes at all. Working out 270 ÷ 5 = 54p divides the 750 g box's price by the wrong number of hundred-grams (the 500 g box's), giving a rate that belongs to neither box. The 750 g box, at 36p per 100 g, is the better value.
- (b) 1500 — The rate is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5 litres per minute. Converting to cm³: 1.5 × 1000 = 1500 cm³ per minute. Getting 3000 comes from converting 3 litres to cm³ first (3000 cm³) and forgetting to divide by the 2 minutes. Getting 750 comes from dividing by the 2 minutes a second time after converting (1500 ÷ 2). Getting 2000 comes from converting the 2 minutes as if it were litres (2 × 1000) instead of using the correct rate of 1.5 litres per minute.
- (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.)
- (b) −3 — Method: the gradient is the change in the vertical value divided by the change in the horizontal value, with both changes taken in the same direction along the line. Working: going from (1, 20) to (5, 8) the change in y is 8 − 20 = −12 and the change in x is 5 − 1 = 4, so the gradient is −12 ÷ 4 = −3. Answer: −3, and the negative sign is expected because the line falls from left to right. The distractors: 3 comes from subtracting the smaller y from the larger, 20 − 8 = 12, while still taking the x values from left to right, which loses the minus sign that says the line falls; −12 is the change in y left undivided by the change in x of 4; −1/3 comes from dividing the change in x by the change in y, 4 ÷ (−12), turning the gradient upside down.
- (c) 2/7 — Method: each number in a ratio counts parts, so the whole is all the parts added together, and the fraction wanted is the cement parts over that total. Working: the mix has 5 + 2 = 7 parts altogether, and 2 of those parts are cement, so the cement is 2/7 of the mix. Answer: 2/7. The distractors: 2/5 comes from writing the cement parts over the sand parts, comparing one part with the other part instead of with the whole; 5/7 comes from writing the sand parts over the total, which answers about the wrong material; 7/2 comes from writing the total over the cement parts, turning the fraction upside down.
- (a) 1.375 — The multiplier is the new value divided by the original value: 176 000 ÷ 128 000 = 1.375. Choosing 0.375 comes from working out the increase as a fraction of the original (48 000 ÷ 128 000 = 0.375) and stopping there, without adding on the 1 whole that represents the original turnover. Choosing 0.727 comes from dividing the 2023 turnover by the 2024 turnover, the wrong way round (128 000 ÷ 176 000, rounded to 3 decimal places). Choosing 137.5 comes from writing the multiplier as a percentage — the 2024 turnover is 137.5% of the 2023 turnover — instead of converting it to the decimal multiplier 1.375.
- (a) 70 km/h — Method: average speed for a whole journey is the total distance divided by the total time, not the mean of the separate speeds. Working: 3 × 80 = 240 km and 1 × 40 = 40 km, giving 280 km in 3 + 1 = 4 hours, so 280 ÷ 4 = 70. Answer: 70 km/h. The distractors: 60 km/h comes from taking the mean of 80 and 40, which would only be right if equal times were spent at each speed; 280 km/h is the total distance written with a speed unit, from forgetting to divide by the total time; 80 km/h comes from quoting the speed of the longer leg as the average for the whole journey.
- (a) 5/12 — Work out the distance still to travel: 372 − 217 = 155 miles. Form the fraction 155/372; both numbers share a factor of 31, so 155 ÷ 31 = 5 and 372 ÷ 31 = 12, giving 5/12. 7/12 comes from writing the distance already travelled as the fraction of the journey (217/372 = 7/12), instead of the distance still to travel. 145/372 comes from miscalculating 372 − 217 as 145 instead of 155. 5/7 comes from comparing the remaining distance with the distance already travelled (155/217 = 5/7), instead of with the total journey.
- (b) 7980 — After the first year: 8000 × 0.95 = 7600. After the second year: 7600 × 1.05 = 7980. 8000 comes from assuming a 5% decrease followed by a 5% increase returns exactly to the starting number — it does not, because the increase acts on the smaller, already-reduced number. 8400 comes from applying only the second year's 5% increase to the original number: 8000 × 1.05 = 8400. 7600 comes from applying only the first year's 5% decrease and stopping there, without applying the second year's increase.
- (c) 3 hours — Method: in inverse proportion the product of the two quantities is constant, and here that product is the distance. Working: 60 × 4 = 240 km, so at 80 km/h the time is 240 ÷ 80 = 3. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 5 hours 20 minutes comes from treating the relationship as direct, working out 4 × 80 ÷ 60; 2 hours 40 minutes comes from cutting the time by the fraction the speed rose by — the speed went up by one third, so the time was cut by one third — which is not how inverse proportion works; 4 hours comes from dividing the 240 km by the original speed of 60 km/h again instead of by the new speed.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.