For me this was the hardest quesiton
I talked about the gradients and y-intercepts and how the gradients were steeper for the 1st snake (can't remember its name) which suggested that as the length increased, the weight increased at a quicker/greater rate than the 2nd snake

(edited 10 months ago)

Reply 84

catsforever1154

10

Original post by aditya nair12344

they might be lower as that was hard paper 1, last year grade 9 was 121, so this year maybe like 109? maybe, but we don't know yet how the paper 2 will be like

Yeah i agree although i personally doubt it'll be as low as 109. I'm thinking 115-120 just based on that paper. I think i got 65--70 (being a bit pessimistic) on that one so i need to not mess up paper 2 basically

Reply 85

Mrdino32

7

Original post by aditya nair12344

what did anyone do for the snakes question about the regression line 3marks ?

when I was going through it I saw that you could say multiple things including (but not limited to ):
-- For both species, both males and females have a positive correlation between x and y
-- At x = 0, y is higher for females than males for both species
-- The first species of snakes had a faster increase in y value for both genders
-- The rate of increase for males is greater than females for both species

Reply 86

Mrdino32

7

Original post by catsforever1154

Yeah i agree although i personally doubt it'll be as low as 109. I'm thinking 115-120 just based on that paper. I think i got 65--70 (being a bit pessimistic) on that one so i need to not mess up paper 2 basically

same. The exam board never change the grades by more than 2% anyway so I reckon we will have the 1.5% decrease max, which suggests the grade boundary will be 118 at the lowest. However, judging from the difficulty of the paper. It seems more likely that we're facing a 0.75% increase which puts us around 121 marks (ironically what the previous grade boundary actually was). Per paper, this is 59 to 61 marks (so not scarily difficult)

If you want to know how I calculated this:
160 *0.75 = 120 (based on previous grade boundaries a 9 is set around 75%)
120 *1.0075 = 120.9 = 121
120 * 0.985 = 118.2 = 118

Reply 87

SH124MA

4

Did everyone get spearman's to be 0.595 and then said it indicated a (moderate) positive agreement between the judges and that it shows a (moderate) positive correlation between the two variables.

Reply 88

Mrdino32

7

Original post by SH124MA

Did everyone get spearman's to be 0.595 and then said it indicated a (moderate) positive agreement between the judges and that it shows a (moderate) positive correlation between the two variables.

yep. I said that they agree for the most part instead of moderately though.

Reply 89

amber.07

9

Original post by SH124MA

Did everyone get spearman's to be 0.595 and then said it indicated a (moderate) positive agreement between the judges and that it shows a (moderate) positive correlation between the two variables.

I got that too

Reply 90

aditya nair12344

7

if it is those marks per paper (59 to 61) i got this grade 9 in the bag

Original post by Mrdino32

same. The exam board never change the grades by more than 2% anyway so I reckon we will have the 1.5% decrease max, which suggests the grade boundary will be 118 at the lowest. However, judging from the difficulty of the paper. It seems more likely that we're facing a 0.75% increase which puts us around 121 marks (ironically what the previous grade boundary actually was). Per paper, this is 59 to 61 marks (so not scarily difficult)

If you want to know how I calculated this:
160 *0.75 = 120 (based on previous grade boundaries a 9 is set around 75%)
120 *1.0075 = 120.9 = 121
120 * 0.985 = 118.2 = 118

if it is those marks per paper (59 to 61) i got this grade 9 in the bag

Reply 91

aditya nair12344

7

Original post by SH124MA

Did everyone get spearman's to be 0.595 and then said it indicated a (moderate) positive agreement between the judges and that it shows a (moderate) positive correlation between the two variables.