Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

STEP I, II, III 2010 Solutions

Scroll to see replies

username219321

III/2 attached. (was taking ages to type in). I can't help but think my answer to the first bit of ii should cancel down a bit? But I can't see any identity that would do it.

(edited 13 years ago)

matt2k8

III/2 attached. (was taking ages to type in). I can't help but think my answer to the first bit of ii should cancel down a bit? But I can't see any identity that would do it.

I think if you factorise x^2 + 2xsinha - 1 as (x+e^a)(x-e^(-a)) and then use partial fractions it comes out a bit nicer. :smile:

(disclaimer: this may not be true :p:

)

Reply 22

Resumodnar

Isn't question #5 too easy for STEP? And #4 too.

Reply 23

jj193

Boundaries were high, if your talking about STEP I/II

Reply 24

lewdan

when are the examiner's reports out? I enjoy reading NAS's put-downs, normally about my answers

Reply 25

username219321

Resumodnar

Isn't question #5 too easy for STEP? And #4 too.

Boundaries were very high on STEP I,II and I agree they were 2 of the easiest STEP papers I've seen.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 26

jj193

lewdan

when are the examiner's reports out? I enjoy reading NAS's put-downs, normally about my answers

NAS - National Autist Society?

Reply 27

lewdan

no, one of my teachers writes STEP questions

and I still couldn't get a 1

Reply 28

Physics Enemy

lewdan

no, one of my teachers writes STEP questions

and I still couldn't get a 1

I was 2 marks off a 1 in STEP 1 ... I'm just too slow. The Q difficulty was fine in general. :frown:

I'm not as quick as some of these guys, something I have to try and improve.

Reply 29

lewdan

Physics Enemy

I was 2 marks off a 1 in STEP 1 ... I'm just too slow. The Q difficulty was fine in general. :frown:

I'm not as quick as some of these guys, something I have to try and improve.

Speed was fine, if anything I got through too many questions.

Not getting right to the end of questions was the problem

Reply 30

Physics Enemy

lewdan

Speed was fine, if anything I got through too many questions.

Not getting right to the end of questions was the problem

Why didn't you spend more time trying to complete the Qs?

Reply 31

Farhan.Hanif93

Physics Enemy

Why didn't you spend more time trying to complete the Qs?

I guess he panicked a little? When you're sitting there in a daunting exam like STEP, where you know that time is a serious pressure, not seeing questions through is fairly common I guess. At the points where I got stuck on a part of a problem, I would attempt to ask myself the key questions to unpack it for no longer than 5 minutes. I made sure that I had a decent stab at 6 questions before I went back to tidy the others up.

Reply 32

username219321

III/7 attached. Was horrible how long each line of working was :frown:

. Also last bit should be degree |m| - I forgot to take into account that m can be negative.

(edited 13 years ago)

Sign error at the end of Q7, ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!

III/8 attatched. Is it just me or are the 2 parts completely irrelevant? I suppose you could possibly use the same method for the integral in the second part as the first part, but I can't see the answer turning out any tidier/ it being any quicker than the tan x/2 sub.

(edited 13 years ago)

yeah I just deleted my failed solution haha :smile:

Reply 36

username219321

I/3 attached - amazing how much shorter I questions really are than III ones.

I wasn't sure about the second bit of i - there's plenty of values of u,v,w that satisfy the relationship determined, yet obviously aren't the angle bisector of AOB, and I can't see an obvious way to get another relationship between them? So I ended up not using the relationship you find in the first bit at all.

II,5

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 38

username219321

The extra point A` was to make an isoceles triangle, it just going through the midpoint AB wouldn't mean it bisected AOB.