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) 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.
- (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).
- (d) 25 — Gradient = (60 − 20) ÷ (15 − 5) = 40 ÷ 10 = 4 litres per minute. Since the butt is empty at t = 0, V = 4t. Setting V = 100 gives t = 100 ÷ 4 = 25 minutes.
- (c) £7617.60 — To decrease by 8% each year, multiply by 0.92 (100% − 8%) twice. £9000 × 0.92 × 0.92 = £7617.60. £7560.00 comes from treating the two 8% decreases as a single flat 16% decrease applied once instead of compounding: £9000 × 0.84 = £7560.00. £8280.00 comes from applying the 8% decrease only once, for 1 year instead of 2: £9000 × 0.92 = £8280.00. £10497.60 comes from multiplying by 1.08 twice, increasing the value instead of decreasing it: £9000 × 1.08 × 1.08 = £10497.60.
- (b) 250 g — Method: adding water changes the total mass but not the mass of salt, so find the salt, hold it fixed, use the new ratio to find the new total mass and subtract the mass already in the beaker. Working: 12:100 = x:500 gives 12 ÷ 100 × 500 = 60 g of salt; that 60 g must be 8% of the new mixture, so 8:100 = 60:y gives y = 60 ÷ 8 × 100 = 750 g; the water added is 750 − 500 = 250 g. Answer: 250 g. The distractors: 750 g is the mass of the diluted solution, given without taking away the 500 g that was in the beaker to start with; 60 g is the mass of salt, the quantity that stays the same, given instead of the mass of water; 20 g comes from treating the fall from 12% to 8% as 4% of the original 500 g, which measures a change in concentration as though it were a mass of water.
- (d) 20 — Gradient = change in T ÷ change in t = (140 − 60) ÷ (6 − 2) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20. A student who subtracts in the wrong order gets −20. A student who divides 80 by 2 instead of 4 gets 40. A student who wrongly treats the line as passing through the origin and uses the point (2, 60) on its own gets 60 ÷ 2 = 30.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (a) 2978 — A rise of 6% is a multiplier of 1.06, applied once for each year. After year 1: 2500 × 1.06 = 2650. After year 2: 2650 × 1.06 = 2809. After year 3: 2809 × 1.06 = 2977.54, which is 2978 to the nearest whole number. Multiplying by 1.18 in one go would be wrong, because the second and third years grow from larger numbers than the first.
- (b) €230.00 — Multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate: 200 × 1.15 = 230, so £200 = €230.00. Working out 200 + 1.15 = 201.15 treats the exchange rate as an amount to add rather than a multiplier. Working out 200 × 0.15 = 30 finds only the extra amount earned for every pound and forgets to add it back to the original £200. Working out 200 × 11.5 = 2300.00 misplaces the decimal point in the exchange rate, multiplying by 11.5 instead of 1.15. £200 converts to €230.00.
- (d) 500 ml — Varnish covers a surface, so the amount needed scales with the area scale factor, which is the square of the length scale factor. The length scale factor is 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5, so the area scale factor is 2.5 × 2.5 = 6.25. The varnish needed for the larger statue is 80 × 6.25 = 500 ml. Using 2.5 on its own would scale a length, not a surface.
- (b) 1 : 1.875 — To write a ratio in the form 1 : n, divide both parts by the first part, 8: 8 ÷ 8 = 1 and 15 ÷ 8 = 1.875, giving 1 : 1.875. Giving 1 : 0.53 divides the wrong way round, computing 8 ÷ 15 instead of 15 ÷ 8. Giving 1.875 : 1 has the two parts of the answer swapped, which is the form n : 1, not 1 : n. Giving 8 : 1.875 divides only the second part by 8, so the first part is still 8, not 1.
- (a) £40.32 — Find the cost per square metre from the rate given: £14.40 ÷ 20 = £0.72 per m². Then multiply by the area to be covered: £0.72 × 56 = £40.32. Working out 14.40 × 20 ÷ 56 ≈ £5.14 uses the ratio the wrong way round, scaling down as if 56 m² needed less paint than 20 m². Stopping at £0.72 only gives the cost per square metre, not the cost for the whole wall. Working out 14.40 + (56 − 20) = £50.40 adds the extra square metres straight onto the cost in pounds, treating square metres and pounds as the same kind of quantity. Covering 56 m² costs £40.32.
- (b) 1 : 500 — smallest real distance per cm (5 m), most detail — Method: compare what one centimetre represents in real life for each scale — the scale with the smallest real distance per cm shows the most detail. Working: for 1 : 500, 1 cm represents 500 cm (5 m); for 1 : 5000, 1 cm represents 50 m; for 1 : 50 000, 1 cm represents 500 m. Since 5 m is the smallest, 1 : 500 shows the most detail. Wrong options: '1 : 50 000 — covers the largest real area' wrongly assumes covering more area means more detail, when it is the opposite; '1 : 5000 — the middle value' wrongly assumes the middle scale is automatically the most balanced; '1 : 500 — covers the largest real distance' picks the correct scale but states an incorrect fact, since 1 : 500 actually covers the smallest real distance per cm.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.