The Student Room Group

Mathematics examination paper from 1970

Scroll to see replies

Mr M
I thought some of you might enjoy having a go at the A Level Special Paper from 1970. This was the equivalent of the AEA and was designed for the top 15% of A Level candidates. You had to answer 8 questions out of 10 in 3 hours.

Question 1.JPG

Question 2.JPG

Question 3.JPG

Question 4.JPG

Question 5.JPG











thank you Mr M. where did you find these?!?! they're so difficult, makes me realise how lucky i am to be sitting maths nowadays! :p:

did you sit these ones back in the day?
jj193
2
a)
e^x >/= x+1
sketch y=x+1
sketch y=e^x
intercept at (0,1) since e^0 = 0+1
for x<0 d(e^x)/dx < 1 hence for all x<0 e^x is always grater than y=x+1
for x>0 d(e^x)/dx >1 hence for all x>0 e^x is always greater than y=x+1

don't know if it counts as proof...?
same idea for part B)
but again, will only suffice if my method of 'proof' counts

A sketch isn't a proof.

Anon the 7th
thank you Mr M. where did you find these?!?! they're so difficult, makes me realise how lucky i am to be sitting maths nowadays

To be fair this is sort of meant to be like a sort of STEP and it has been noted that the difficulty level is similar to STEP 2.
Reply 22
And they wonder why more people are getting A's.
Anon the 7th
thank you Mr M. where did you find these?!?! they're so difficult, makes me realise how lucky i am to be sitting maths nowadays! :p:

did you sit these ones back in the day?


I have the other six (count 'em) 1970 A Level papers too. This is the hardest one. Graham at Edexcel has a library of old papers.

I took my A Levels in 1986 and this is more difficult than my papers. I think the time pressure is the problem. I can answer most of the questions but I couldn't knock out 8 good answers in 3 hours!
Reply 24
I have question 1, give me some time to latex it up.
Reply 25
1's ok, as a physicist I must respond to 2.i with "draw the graphs, it's obvious", but it's not that bad to do properly, 2ii ok unless I've made a mistake.

Anyone got a nice method for 2.ii? Think I've got it, but my solution is pretty ugly for what's quite a nice problem.

Not too evil based on those, but definitely harder than current A-level. Obviously you need to compare it to the AEA though, which I can't really comment on since I've only seen one AEA paper.
Mr M
I have the other six (count 'em) 1970 A Level papers too. This is the hardest one. Graham at Edexcel has a library of old papers.

I took my A Levels in 1984 and this is more difficult than my papers. I think the time pressure is the problem. I can answer most of the questions but I couldn't knock out 8 good answers in 3 hours!


jeeze, they must be truly difficult
Simplicity
x22!+x33!+....0\frac{x^2}{2!}+ \frac{x^3}{3!} +.... \geq 0
which is obvious because I said so:wink:

For positive values of x it's obvious. Can you prove it for negative values of x?
Reply 28
I might have given this a go 2 months ago, but I think I've forgotten everything! :O xD

It does look quite hard, I reckon I could give it a good go though!
Reply 29
That seems to go up to about the same level as MEI FP2, from my semi-educated comparison...
To be honest, this isn't nearly as difficult as I expected. Not sure I'd even say it's harder than the current AEA (although you're expected to know more material).
Okay 2. the correct way

Spoiler

Reply 32
I haven't done any maths for near-on a month, but a rough go gave me this for 6 (ii):

Spoiler

.
Incidentally, 2(i) is pretty easy if you do it the right way:

Spoiler

Reply 34
I found this fairly easy :/
Reply 35
Simplicity
A sketch isn't a proof.

yeah but it's backed up by the fact that they intercept at x=0 and that the gradients are such that e^x 'pulls away above' from y=x+1
(also Mr M did something similar)

i tried you're method and it's fine for -1< x <0 since |x^n|>|x^(n+1)|
since 1>|x|
then for -infinity< x < -1 it looks a complete bitch.
|x^n|<|x^(n+1)| since 1<|x|
maybe add the second and third (so the first is negative(it's further from the convergence) and hence we'll get an estimate that is weighted closer to the lower end - to be on the safe side), take an average. all 'pairs' are converging about the same average and the average can't be lower. the average is positive.
trying this:
(1/3!)*(1/4)*(x(x^3)+4(x^3)) >/= 0 <=> x </= -4
i can only think that exetending this will eventually get it up to -1. though It's probably assymptotic to -1....
Reply 36
Ok, here goes my attempt at question 1:

the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune



my method for the first part didn't help with the second :|

also i made a mistake which has now been corrected
DFranklin
To be honest, this isn't nearly as difficult as I expected. Not sure I'd even say it's harder than the current AEA (although you're expected to know more material).


Interestingly, like the current AEA, this exam was supposed to only test the basic A Level knowledge and did not require students to have taken A Level Further Maths. This illustrates how much the A Level core content has reduced over the years.
jj193
yeah but it's backed up by the fact that they intercept at x=0 and that the gradients are such that e^x 'pulls away above' from y=x+1
(also Mr M did something similar)

i tried you're method and it's fine for -1< x <0 since |x^n|>|x^(n+1)|
since 1>|x|
then for -infinity< x < -1 it looks a complete bitch.
|x^n|<|x^(n+1)| since 1<|x|
maybe add the second and third (so the first is negative(it's further from the convergence) and hence we'll get an estimate that is weighted closer to the lower end - to be on the safe side), take an average. all 'pairs' are converging about the same average and the average can't be lower. the average is positive.
trying this:
(1/3!)*(1/4)*(x(x^3)+4(x^3)) >/= 0 <=> x </= -4
i can only think that exetending this will eventually get it up to -1. though It's probably assymptotic to -1....

See generalebriety post.

Again, a sketch isn't a proof. Although, looking at gradients is the sane way to go.
Same method for 2(ii) as well (already posted I think).

for the 3rd bit:

Spoiler

Quick Reply

Latest