Thats what you think but generally I think people made mistakes. For example Bond Angles, Saying something about Displacement instead of Silver Nitrate, VDW forces etc etc

Reply 1310

jackitsme

Original post by flyylikejetz

You sure for the cl one ?
I said
Group 2 becomes more reactive as you go down with cl
number of electrons increases thus shell and atomic radius
increase electron shielding
less nuclear attraction of outer-most electrons
easier to lose an electron ?

yes the 3-4 points
atomic raduis ,sheilding and nuclear attraction ect your right,you get marks for the words

Reply 1311

kingmango

7

What have the grade boundaries been for the past several years?

Reply 1312

username1107833

2

Original post by yodawg321

Thats what you think but generally I think people made mistakes. For example Bond Angles, Saying something about Displacement instead of Silver Nitrate, VDW forces etc etc

No, generally I heard most people thought it was a good paper. Guess I missed a few opinion out on here.

Reply 1313

yodawg321

12

Original post by theCreator

No, generally I heard most people thought it was a good paper. Guess I missed a few opinion out on here.

Yeah generally people on TSR thought It was a good paper but there's always room for mistakes

Reply 1314

_Ddraig_

19

Original post by theCreator

When you compare it to papers from earlier years, this was a straight-forward paper. Not that many questions which really stumped anyone.

I disagree with that to a degree, yes it was pretty straight forward, but many of the questions as somebody already mentioned were quite deceiving or not as obvious as those in the past. The calculations were pretty straight forward, but it was a different paper to past papers, so it's hardly one we're used to.

Reply 1315

niceguy95

14

Original post by Legal drugdealer

your joking right thats very high for this paper dont you think

everyone saying this paper was easier than jan based on comments, june 2010 was 52 for an A
june 11 was 50
june 12 was 49

so no

Reply 1316

Legal drugdealer

Original post by _Morsey_

I disagree with that to a degree, yes it was pretty straight forward, but many of the questions as somebody already mentioned were quite deceiving or not as obvious as those in the past. The calculations were pretty straight forward, but it was a different paper to past papers, so it's hardly one we're used to.

agree with you here.

Reply 1317

Legal drugdealer

Original post by niceguy95

everyone saying this paper was easier than jan based on comments, june 2010 was 52 for an A
june 11 was 50
june 12 was 49

so no

fair enough but i was the same until i realised how many errors ive made so oppinions may change with a markscheme

Reply 1318

username1107833

2

Original post by _Morsey_

I disagree with that to a degree, yes it was pretty straight forward, but many of the questions as somebody already mentioned were quite deceiving or not as obvious as those in the past. The calculations were pretty straight forward, but it was a different paper to past papers, so it's hardly one we're used to.

I agree with you to some extent. But that's sort of the point. If we just had the same questions or similar questions what would be the point, almost everyone would know the answer from past years, as much as I and everyone else dislikes it, they are sort of forced to ask us new different style questions. For example if you did biology you'd know that tuesday's paper was simply vile.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1319

anna1233

On the very last question on that table, for the bottom right box i just wrote 'f2 molecules' do you think I'll get the mark or is that not precise enough?

Ocr f321 23 may 2013~official discussion thread

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you