Find your next learning step
Choose the question closest to what you need today, or read the guide from the beginning.
If a recipe for four equal portions is scaled to seven, every ingredient in a direct-proportion model must be multiplied by seven quarters. Multiplying only the flour while leaving the liquid unchanged changes the ingredient ratio. It does not simply make a larger amount of the same mixture.
For a fictional classroom recipe using 300 g of flour, 80 g of sugar and 240 ml of liquid for four portions, the seven-portion amounts are 525 g, 140 g and 420 ml. The common multiplier is 7/4 = 1.75. Each original amount receives that same factor.
This is a Mathematics model, not a tested cooking instruction. Real preparation can involve fixed equipment, rounding, indivisible items and processes that do not scale exactly. The lesson is to recognise the assumption of proportional ingredient quantities, calculate consistently within it and notice when a question supplies an exception.
Contents
Sections 1–5
Sections 6–10
Sections 11–15
Sections 16–20
Sections 21–25
Sections 26–28
Find the multiplier by dividing the required number of equal portions by the original number. Then multiply every proportional ingredient amount by that factor. For four portions becoming seven, the factor is 7/4. For four becoming two, it is 2/4 = 1/2.
Check the amount per portion. In the model above, flour is 300/4 = 75 g per portion. Seven portions therefore need 7 × 75 = 525 g. The same unit-rate check gives 20 g of sugar and 60 ml of liquid per portion.
Keep units attached and distinguish quantities from purchasing decisions. Needing 525 g of an ingredient does not mean buying 0.525 of a one-kilogram packet is possible. First calculate the required quantity; then apply any packet-size or rounding rule stated in the problem. These are related decisions with different meanings.
A proportional recipe model assumes the composition and portion size remain the same while the number of portions changes. Each portion receives the same share of every ingredient. The total ingredient amounts therefore grow or shrink together.
If four portions need 300 g of flour, eight equal portions need 600 g under that model. The number of portions doubles, and so does the flour. The same doubling applies to each other proportional ingredient, not only to the ingredient chosen first.
The assumption matters. If the new portions are larger, or if an ingredient is deliberately changed, the old direct-proportion relationship may no longer describe the new task. A Mathematics question usually states or implies that equal portions of the same mixture are required.
Before calculating, say what is being preserved: amount of each ingredient per equal portion, or the full composition ratio. This sentence prevents a learner from treating any increase in people as permission to add a convenient fixed amount of every ingredient.
Direct proportion is a statement about a relationship. It needs a reason from the problem, even when the arithmetic that follows is straightforward.
For a change from four portions to seven, the scale factor is seven divided by four. It answers how many copies of the original batch are required. The factor is 1.75, meaning one full original batch plus three quarters of another.
Reversing the fraction gives 4/7, which is below one. Multiplying by that would shrink the ingredient amounts even though more equal portions are required. A quick direction check can expose the inverted multiplier before any ingredient calculations are done.
For a change from four portions to two, the factor is 2/4 = 0.5, which correctly shrinks the batch. For a change from four to twelve, it is 12/4 = 3, which triples it.
The numerator and denominator are not chosen by which number is larger. They are chosen by role: required amount of the independent quantity compared with its original amount. A shrinking task still uses new divided by original.
Write “new portions/original portions” once at the start. That label gives a reusable reason for the fraction order and makes the method easier to transfer to maps, mixtures and other proportional situations.
Instead of finding one batch multiplier, you can calculate the amount needed for one portion and then multiply by the required number. For flour, 300 g divided by four gives 75 g per portion. Seven portions require 525 g.
For sugar, 80/4 = 20 g per portion, so seven require 140 g. For liquid, 240/4 = 60 ml per portion, so seven require 420 ml. These match the scale-factor route exactly.
The algebra explains the agreement: original amount × new portions/original portions is the same as original amount/original portions × new portions. The order of multiplication and division can be rearranged when the original portion count is nonzero.
Use the route that makes the numbers easiest to interpret. Dividing by four is convenient here. In another problem, a direct factor such as three halves may be simpler than producing a recurring per-portion decimal.
Do not calculate a rounded unit rate and then expect exact agreement with the factor method. Keep the unit rate exact as a fraction or retain enough precision until the final answer. The two methods agree mathematically; premature rounding can make their numerical implementations diverge.
Suppose the original flour and sugar amounts are 300 g and 80 g. Adding fifty grams to each gives 350 g and 130 g. The original ratio is 300:80 = 15:4, while the new ratio is 350:130 = 35:13. They differ.
The same added amount represents different relative changes: fifty is one sixth of three hundred but five eighths of eighty. The ingredient proportions therefore change even though the absolute additions match.
Multiplication by a shared factor behaves differently. Multiplying both amounts by 1.75 gives 525 g and 140 g. Their ratio reduces to 15:4, preserving the composition in this model.
This comparison explains why scaling uses a multiplier rather than an equal addition. The goal is to preserve relative amounts, and multiplication changes both parts by the same relative amount.
Equal additions can be appropriate in a different model, such as adding a separately specified fixed quantity to every container. But that would be an additional condition, not direct-proportion recipe scaling. Read what the problem asks to remain constant before choosing the operation.
The fictional model gives four portions using 300 g flour, 80 g sugar and 240 ml liquid. Find the quantities for seven equal portions while preserving the composition. The scale factor is 7/4 = 1.75.
Multiply each amount: flour is 300 × 1.75 = 525 g; sugar is 80 × 1.75 = 140 g; liquid is 240 × 1.75 = 420 ml. Retain the units supplied for each ingredient.
Check by dividing by seven. The new per-portion amounts are 75 g flour, 20 g sugar and 60 ml liquid, matching the original quantities divided by four. This verifies that each portion keeps the same model composition.
Also check direction: seven exceeds four, so every positive proportional ingredient amount should increase. The answers are larger by the common factor 1.75, not by a common number of grams or millilitres.
A complete final statement names every requested ingredient. Giving only 525 g of flour leaves the task unfinished if the question asks for the full scaled list. The shared multiplier makes the calculations related, but each output remains a distinct quantity with its own unit.
A compact table is useful when several quantities receive one factor. It makes omissions easier to spot and helps a reader verify that the same relationship was applied throughout.
| Ingredient | Four portions | Multiplier | Seven portions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flour | 300 g | 7/4 | 525 g |
| Sugar | 80 g | 7/4 | 140 g |
| Liquid | 240 ml | 7/4 | 420 ml |
The table does not authorise adding unlike units. Flour and sugar masses could be added if a total mass of those two ingredients were requested. The liquid volume cannot simply be added to the mass numbers and labelled as a total mass or volume.
If one row uses a different factor without a stated exception, the table makes the inconsistency visible. For example, leaving liquid at 240 ml while increasing flour and sugar would change the mixture.
Use a table when it clarifies repeated quantities, but do not let the layout replace the model statement. The reason all rows use seven quarters is that every ingredient is assumed proportional to the number of equal portions.
A change from four portions to six uses a factor of 6/4 = 3/2. This can be understood as one and a half original batches. Flour becomes 450 g, sugar 120 g and liquid 360 ml in the running model.
One route multiplies by three and divides by two. Another adds half the original amount to the original amount. Both implement multiplication by 1.5. They do not introduce different proportional assumptions.
For a change from four to three, the factor is 3/4. Flour becomes 225 g, sugar 60 g and liquid 180 ml. The factor below one correctly reduces each positive amount.
Do not round a factor such as 7/3 to a short decimal before using it if exact arithmetic is available. A fraction can preserve the relationship cleanly, particularly when the original ingredient amount is divisible by the denominator.
Fractional factors are not a special exception to scaling. They are often the natural representation of a new portion count that is not a whole-number multiple of the original. Understanding them prevents a learner from assuming that only doubling, tripling or halving can be handled reliably.
The flour amount 525 g equals 0.525 kg. These are two representations of the same mass. Converting the unit before or after proportional scaling should agree when the conversion and multiplication are exact.
For example, 300 g is 0.3 kg. Multiplying by 7/4 gives 0.525 kg, which converts back to 525 g. The conversion does not create an additional serving multiplier.
Likewise, 240 ml becomes 420 ml after scaling, or 0.24 litres becomes 0.42 litres. Keep a consistent unit within each calculation so that a factor of one thousand does not get mixed with the portion factor.
A common error is to compare 0.3 kg with 420 ml as though the numbers alone describe compatible quantities. They measure different physical quantities. Without a supplied density relationship, mass and volume cannot be converted by a universal one-to-one rule.
These examples use grams, kilograms, millilitres and litres only as mathematical quantities. No assumption is made that a particular ingredient has the same numerical mass and volume. Unit labels protect the meaning of the calculation as well as the size of its answer.
The original flour-to-sugar ratio is 300:80 = 15:4. The seven-portion ratio 525:140 also equals 15:4. A shared multiplier cancels when the ratio is simplified, so the composition stays fixed.
The per-portion rates express the same consistency in another way. Flour remains 75 g per portion and sugar remains 20 g per portion. Comparing those rates gives 75:20 = 15:4.
A ratio between two ingredients and a rate per portion answer different questions, but both can check the proportional model. The ingredient ratio checks composition; the per-portion rate also checks whether the intended portion size was retained.
If all ingredients are multiplied by two while the stated number of portions remains four, the composition is preserved but the amount per portion doubles. That would be a different portion-size decision.
Therefore, preserving a ratio alone is not enough to establish that a proposed batch serves the required number of equal original-sized portions. Check both the shared composition and the relationship between total amount and portion count. The story supplies which of those properties must remain fixed.
Suppose the same model uses 75 g flour per portion and 600 g flour is available. The flour supports 600/75 = 8 portions. If all other ingredients are available in sufficient amounts, an eight-portion batch requires 160 g sugar and 480 ml liquid.
The phrase about other ingredients matters. Flour alone establishes only its own capacity to support portions. It does not prove that the complete batch can be made from the available stock.
If the problem states that 420 ml liquid was used at 60 ml per portion, the corresponding portion count is seven. That agrees with the seven-portion flour and sugar amounts already calculated.
This reverse task uses the same unit rates as forward scaling. The unknown has changed from an ingredient quantity to a portion count, so division replaces the final multiplication.
Check the answer by rebuilding an ingredient amount. Eight portions at 75 g each use 600 g, and seven portions at 60 ml each use 420 ml. A reverse check should return to the supplied quantity, with the correct unit and the original-sized portion assumption intact.
Suppose the available stock is 600 g flour, 140 g sugar and 600 ml liquid. At the model rates, flour supports eight portions, sugar supports seven and liquid supports ten. The complete batch is limited to seven whole original-sized portions by sugar.
You cannot average eight, seven and ten to obtain an allowable batch size. Every portion needs all ingredients. The smallest supported portion count is the binding condition.
For seven portions, flour used is 525 g and liquid used is 420 ml. The leftovers are 75 g flour and 180 ml liquid, while all 140 g sugar is used. These amounts follow from subtraction after the portion decision.
If fractional portions are allowed, a different numerical maximum may be relevant in other examples. If the question requires whole portions of the original size, round the limiting capacity down, not to the nearest integer.
This is a model about ingredient quantities. It does not account for preparation losses or equipment limits unless they are supplied. Read those conditions before treating the smallest arithmetic ratio as a complete practical answer.
The model may require 525 g flour, while flour is sold only in 250 g packets in a fictional question. Two packets provide 500 g, which is insufficient. Three packets provide 750 g, so three must be purchased if no other stock is available.
The required quantity remains 525 g. The purchase quantity is 750 g, leaving 225 g unused. Those numbers answer different questions and should not replace one another without explanation.
Similarly, a calculated need for 140 g sugar does not become 200 g merely because packets contain 200 g. The larger amount is a purchasing consequence, not a changed proportional ingredient requirement.
This distinction prevents a common mistake in multi-step questions: using the rounded-up purchase quantity as though it were the quantity to add to the mixture. Doing so can alter the composition the scaling calculation was meant to preserve.
Keep the stages labelled. First calculate ingredient needs. Then determine whole packets or containers under the stated stock rules. Finally calculate any cost or leftover quantity requested. The mathematical relationships become easier to inspect when each number retains its role.
Some classroom models include an ingredient counted in whole items. If four portions require two identical items, seven portions mathematically require 3.5 items under exact proportional scaling. That result describes a half-item equivalent, not automatically a permitted practical action.
If the question allows dividing the item into equal portions, the fractional quantity can be meaningful. If it requires whole items only, an additional instruction is needed: perhaps make a different batch size or calculate the amount available from a chosen whole-item count.
Do not silently round 3.5 to four and claim that every ingredient ratio is unchanged. Four items represent a larger relative amount than the exact proportional requirement. The changed quantity may be acceptable under a stated practical rule, but it should be described as an adjustment.
For Mathematics exercises, follow the modelling conditions rather than importing assumptions about an actual kitchen. The problem may be designed to test exact fractions, whole-item purchasing or a maximum whole-portion count.
Identifying which decision is requested is part of solving the question. Exact proportional arithmetic can reveal the practical constraint; it cannot choose an unstated policy for handling that constraint.
A question might specify a fixed 20 ml amount used for a separate equipment step regardless of batch size, alongside liquid that scales with portions. Then the total liquid model could be 60p + 20 ml for p portions.
For four portions, this total is 260 ml. For seven, it is 440 ml. Multiplying the entire 260 ml by 7/4 gives 455 ml, which is wrong because it also scales the fixed component.
The correct method separates proportional and fixed quantities because the question defines them differently. Multiply the per-portion component by the new count, then add the unchanged fixed amount.
This example is a fictional mathematical specification, not a cooking recommendation. Its purpose is to show why a direct-proportion shortcut needs conditions. A story containing a recipe does not force every number in the story to obey the same relationship.
The earlier guides in the Mathematics explainer directory discuss fixed starting amounts and proportion. Here the same distinction appears inside a familiar scaling task: identify what changes per portion and what the question says remains fixed.
Using the four-portion model of 300 g flour, 80 g sugar and 240 ml liquid, find the quantities for ten portions. The factor is 10/4 = 2.5. The answers are 750 g flour, 200 g sugar and 600 ml liquid.
Now find the quantities for one portion. Divide every amount by four to obtain 75 g flour, 20 g sugar and 60 ml liquid. Check that multiplying those values by ten reproduces the preceding answers.
For a third task, find the quantities for three portions. Multiplying by three quarters gives 225 g flour, 60 g sugar and 180 ml liquid. Every positive amount decreases because the new portion count is smaller.
Explain why adding six to each original amount is not a method for moving from four to ten portions. The change in people is six, but an ingredient quantity is not measured in people. The relationship requires the amount per portion or a dimensionless scale factor.
The units expose the mistake: six people cannot simply be added to three hundred grams. Even when a learner writes the addition without units, the quantities still have meanings that the arithmetic must respect.
A fictional recipe for six portions uses 450 g flour. How much is needed for four equal portions? The scale factor is 4/6 = 2/3, so the requirement is 300 g. The amount decreases as expected.
For nine portions from the same original recipe, the factor is 9/6 = 3/2, giving 675 g. A factor of 6/9 would shrink the amount and contradict the direction of the task.
Now suppose 525 g flour is used at the same per-portion rate. Since 450/6 = 75 g per portion, the corresponding count is 525/75 = 7 portions. The reverse calculation uses the amount divided by its per-portion rate.
These examples share the same relationship but ask for different unknowns. Label the known amount and the target before choosing multiplication or division.
If the fraction direction remains uncertain, use the one-portion route as a check. It may take an extra line, but it makes the meaning explicit: first find what one equal portion needs, then build the required number of those portions.
The model needs 75 g flour, 20 g sugar and 60 ml liquid per portion. Available stock is 500 g flour, 150 g sugar and 420 ml liquid. Find the maximum number of whole original-sized portions.
Flour supports 500/75 = 6⅔ portions. Sugar supports 150/20 = 7.5 portions. Liquid supports 420/60 = 7 portions. Flour is limiting, so the maximum whole-portion count is six.
Six portions use 450 g flour, 120 g sugar and 360 ml liquid. The leftovers are 50 g flour, 30 g sugar and 60 ml liquid. Check that every used amount stays within the available stock.
Rounding 6⅔ to seven would require 525 g flour, exceeding the available 500 g. The usual nearest-integer rule is therefore unsuitable for this maximum whole-portion question.
The conclusion depends on the whole-portion condition. If divisible portion equivalents were allowed, the exact limiting count would be 6⅔ under this simplified model. State which interpretation the question requests rather than treating one rounding convention as universal.
Suppose one correctly scaled batch serves three original-sized portions and another serves five, using the same model composition. Their ingredient totals support eight portions: flour 225 + 375 = 600 g, sugar 60 + 100 = 160 g and liquid 180 + 300 = 480 ml.
This works because both batches share the same per-portion quantities. Adding their totals is equivalent to adding their portion counts before applying the shared rate.
If two batches use different compositions, the combined mixture may have a new ratio. You cannot label it as the original recipe merely because the total number of portions is known.
For example, keeping flour the same but changing sugar in one batch changes the combined flour-to-sugar ratio. A total portion count alone does not restore the missing composition condition.
This distinction connects recipe scaling with weighted mixtures. Each batch contributes actual quantities, not just a label or an unweighted average of ratios. When a question asks about the combined result, add compatible ingredient amounts first and then calculate the requested ratio or per-portion rate from those totals.
Increasing the number of equal portions by 25% multiplies it by 1.25. Under the direct-proportion model, every ingredient amount receives the same multiplier. A four-portion batch therefore becomes five portions.
The running ingredient amounts become 375 g flour, 100 g sugar and 300 ml liquid. The per-portion quantities remain unchanged because both total amount and portion count increased by the same factor.
Reducing a batch by 20% uses a factor of 0.8. That does not mean subtracting twenty grams or twenty millilitres from each ingredient. The percentage refers to each ingredient’s own original quantity.
If an increase is followed by a decrease, multiply the factors rather than combining the percentages casually. Increasing by 25% and then reducing by 20% gives 1.25 × 0.8 = 1, returning to the original batch quantity in this case.
The shared principle is proportional change. Percentage language, fraction language and decimal multipliers can describe the same scaling, provided the reference amount is clear and the same intended relationship is applied to every relevant ingredient.
Suppose a proportional calculation gives 33⅓ g of an ingredient. Rounding to 33 g creates an approximation. The rounded value may be appropriate under a stated measurement rule, but it no longer preserves the exact original ratio.
If several ingredients are rounded independently, their relative errors can differ. A one-gram change is a larger percentage of a small ingredient amount than of a large one. This is why rounding should be described rather than hidden inside an exact-looking equality.
Keep fractions or sufficient decimal precision during the calculation, then round at the stage the question specifies. Use an approximate sign when reporting a rounded amount in an explanation.
The Mathematics model does not determine the practical tolerance for a real preparation process. Unless the question supplies that tolerance, do not invent one or promise that any particular rounding choice is acceptable.
For examination-style work, the stated accuracy instruction settles the display. For a modelling discussion, identifying the effect of approximation is part of an honest answer. Exact proportional requirements and usable measured quantities are connected, but they are not automatically identical.
Someone proposes seven portions using 525 g flour, 140 g sugar and 360 ml liquid. The first two amounts match the correct scale, but liquid per portion is 360/7 ml, which is below the original 60 ml rate.
The liquid amount corresponds to six portions, not seven. The proposed list therefore mixes two batch scales. A row-by-row rate check locates the inconsistent ingredient without requiring the entire solution to be discarded.
Another proposed list uses 600 g flour, 160 g sugar and 480 ml liquid. Its composition is correct, but it corresponds to eight original-sized portions. If the task requested seven, it overproduces the model batch.
These two errors differ. The first changes composition; the second preserves composition but uses the wrong portion count. A useful check should identify which requirement failed.
Ask both questions: “Are the ingredient ratios preserved?” and “Does the amount per requested portion match the original?” Together they test the full task more effectively than checking a single ingredient in isolation.
Begin with the original portion count and the target portion count. Write one scale factor, then list each ingredient with its original amount, calculation and new unit-labelled amount. This makes the shared relationship visible.
If a fixed quantity or packet rule appears, put it in a separate labelled step after the proportional calculation. That is not unnecessary bureaucracy; it prevents a quantity governed by one rule from being silently treated as though it followed another.
For a reverse or limiting-stock question, calculate the per-portion amount or supported portion count for each relevant ingredient. The table should reflect the question rather than forcing every problem into a forward-scaling layout.
End with the requested conclusion: ingredient requirements, maximum whole portions, packets to buy or leftover stock. These answers use some of the same numbers, but they are not interchangeable.
Clear labels also help diagnose arithmetic errors. If the multiplier is correct and only one row is wrong, repair that multiplication. If all rows move in the wrong direction, inspect the factor order. The layout gives the checking process something concrete to examine.
Use a small mixed set: one larger batch, one smaller batch, one reverse portion question and one limiting-stock problem. Ask for the model sentence before the calculation: which quantities scale per equal portion, and which conditions are fixed?
Then change a single condition. Introduce a fixed amount, whole packets or an indivisible item. The learner should recognise that the proportional requirement can still be calculated while a separate practical decision follows.
Do not interpret difficulty with one fractional multiplication as proof that the entire proportion idea is missing. A learner may understand the model but need practice with fractions. Conversely, accurate multiplication does not prove the correct scale factor was chosen.
After a delay, ask the learner to explain why equal additions change a mixture while equal multipliers preserve it. A numerical example with two ingredients is enough to make the comparison concrete.
The aim is to transfer the relationship to unfamiliar quantities. The same reasoning appears in mixtures, unit rates and scale drawings, but the learner must still read each problem’s conditions rather than assuming every real process is directly proportional.
This guide uses a familiar context to explain ratio, rates, fractions and direct proportion. Ingredient-count, packet and fixed-quantity extensions should be selected according to the learner’s readiness. The article is not a tested recipe or a claim about how every real cooking process scales.
For official course context, consult the 2027 G1 Mathematics syllabus. School instructions establish the expected methods and level of accuracy.
The existing Direct and Inverse Proportion guide provides a broader relationship perspective. Its more advanced examples can be chosen selectively; the basic scaling explanation here is intended as an accessible entry point.
Use the Mathematics hub for connected lessons on units, fractions and mathematical modelling. If the current error is an inverted factor, practise direction and one-unit rates. If it is premature rounding, practise exact calculations and final accuracy instructions. The next lesson should address the actual difficulty revealed by the working.
A recipe model for five portions uses 400 g of one ingredient. For eight equal portions, the scale factor is 8/5 and the requirement is 640 g. For two portions, it is 2/5 and the requirement is 160 g.
If 1000 g of that ingredient is available at the same rate, it supports 1000/80 = 12.5 portion equivalents, or twelve whole original-sized portions if whole portions are required. Check the other ingredients before claiming the complete batch can serve that many.
If the required 640 g is purchased in 300 g packets with no existing stock, three packets are needed. The purchase supplies 900 g and leaves 260 g after the model requirement is used.
Finally, explain why changing from five to eight portions does not mean adding three grams to every ingredient. The change in portion count must be translated through the per-portion relationship. The scale factor is dimensionless and multiplies quantities; the raw difference in people is not an ingredient amount.
One final check is to reverse the complete batch multiplier. Dividing the seven-portion amounts 525 g, 140 g and 420 ml by seven quarters returns 300 g, 80 g and 240 ml. Recovering every original amount confirms that the same proportional transformation was applied throughout the list.
Identify the relationship first: equal original-sized portions of the same model mixture require the same amount of every ingredient per portion. Divide new portions by original portions to obtain the common scale factor, then apply it to each proportional quantity.
Check the result through per-portion rates and ingredient ratios. Keep units attached, retain exact values until the appropriate rounding stage and distinguish requirements from purchases or whole-item decisions.
When the question supplies a fixed component, separate it from the proportional part. When available stock limits the batch, compare every relevant ingredient’s supported count. When the task asks for whole portions, use that condition to interpret a fractional capacity.
The useful question is, “What must stay the same in each portion?” That question gives the multiplier a purpose and makes a recipe story a clear model of proportional reasoning rather than a collection of numbers waiting for an operation.
These answers refer to the simplified direct-proportion model used in the examples. A real preparation or a differently specified school problem may include additional conditions that must be read separately.
Why must every ingredient use the same multiplier?
Because the model preserves composition and original portion size. Scaling only some ingredients changes their ratios with the others. The shared multiplier keeps each ingredient amount per equal portion unchanged.
Is the multiplier new divided by old or old divided by new?
Use required portions divided by original portions. A larger target gives a factor above one; a smaller target gives a factor below one. The direction check helps detect an inverted fraction.
Should I round up every fractional result?
No. Exact ingredient amounts, whole packets and maximum whole portions are different questions. Round only according to the stated condition. Packet purchases may require rounding up, while a maximum whole-portion capacity may require rounding down.
Does the Mathematics model guarantee a real recipe will work?
No. It describes proportional ingredient quantities under specified assumptions. Real preparation can involve additional constraints. The examples here teach the mathematical relationship and do not replace tested preparation instructions.