x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Edexcel FP2 Official 2016 Exam Thread - 8th June 2016 watch

1. (Original post by hazzam)
The integral is not in the C4 book just like a lot of the stuff in that fp2 paper isnt in the fp2 book.
lol at this...
2. (Original post by AlexFrangos)
Zacken

Is that wrong in question 2 in the IAL paper?
All fine except for a typo at the very end, it should be -1 - sqrt(11) < x < -2 but you've put +2 instead.
3. (Original post by AhnafR)
So the arguments between 0 and 2pi would be correct?
Yes
4. I'm just gonna say this:

Edexcel wanted to give people a challenge by using the hard integration of , rather than just making sure they knew how to use the standard integrating factor method. This ensures that they are testing the further maths candidates who would exhibit the knowledge and understanding of maths to get that question right. If they just assessed people on their ability to use the integrating factor (and method of differences, and polar coordinates) rather than test them then their advanced maths knowledge then the exam is hardly a further maths exam, and they may aswell just give out high grades.
5. To get an A in FM, do you need:

70 avg across all 6

and

80 avg across 3 modules, including 2 of FP2, FP3 and FP1?
6. (Original post by sweeneyrod)
I suppose realising that you had to sum r - 3 separately was slightly non-standard, but I like to think that anyone doing FP2 either knows the sum of r from 1 to n, or can work it out.
Can you do it faster than Gauss tho?
7. does anyone have the link to the thread where we can vote how hard the fp2 june 16 paper was? So i can see how everyone found it.
8. (Original post by justacuriousguy.)
does anyone have the link to the thread where we can vote how hard the fp2 june 16 paper was? So i can see how everyone found it.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4150121
9. thanks
10. (Original post by Craig1998)
I'm just gonna say this:

Edexcel wanted to give people a challenge by using the hard integration of , rather than just making sure they knew how to use the standard integrating factor method. This ensures that they are testing the further maths candidates who would exhibit the knowledge and understanding of maths to get that question right. If they just assessed people on their ability to use the integrating factor (and method of differences, and polar coordinates) rather than test them then their advanced maths knowledge then the exam is hardly a further maths exam, and they may aswell just give out high grades.
No... the integrating factor knowledge was tested in 4(i) (a).

The second first order differential equation 4(ii) was meant to test whether candidates could apply the complementary function + particular integral FP2 integration method to a first order ODE which is something that is unique to the FP2 exam, i.e: testing content on the FP2 spec. If candidates chose to go down the integrating factor and double IBP route, that is just evidence of their fact that they don't understand the nuances FP2 CF/PI method.
11. (Original post by Zacken)
No... the integrating factor knowledge was tested in 4(i) (a).

The second first order differential equation 4(ii) was meant to test whether candidates could apply the complementary function + particular integral FP2 integration method to a first order ODE which is something that is unique to the FP2 exam, i.e: testing content on the FP2 spec. If candidates chose to go down the integrating factor and double IBP route, that is just evidence of their fact that they don't understand the nuances FP2 CF/PI method.
In defence of who went the double IBP route, which is a group that includes myself, I have never seen, both in the textbook or on past papers, the CF/PI method applied to 1st order, all the papers I've done had CF/PI on the 2nd order (please feel free to correct me), so I didn't even know at the time of the exam that 1st orders can be done by CF/PI. The question also didn't specify a method to use. The CF/PI method was tested, just on a later question with the 2nd order, and I don't think Edexcel would have wanted to test us twice on the same topic. Anyway, I hope Edexcel will mark both approaches as correct.
12. (Original post by taichingkan)
In defence of who went the double IBP route, which is a group that includes myself, I have never seen, both in the textbook or on past papers, the CF/PI method applied to 1st order, all the papers I've done had CF/PI on the 2nd order (please feel free to correct me), so I didn't even know at the time of the exam that 1st orders can be done by CF/PI. The question also didn't specify a method to use. The CF/PI method was tested, just on a later question with the 2nd order, and I don't think Edexcel would have wanted to test us twice on the same topic. Anyway, I hope Edexcel will mark both approaches as correct.
Oh, they're both definitely correct. I'm not entirely sure what Edexcel's intentions were with that question, given that they'd already tested the IF previously and the PI+CF later. Oh well.
13. (Original post by Zacken)
Oh, they're both definitely correct. I'm not entirely sure what Edexcel's intentions were with that question, given that they'd already tested the IF previously and the PI+CF later. Oh well.
For me, at the time of the exam, it was unusual to see that I had to IBP twice and use I1=f(x)+kI which to me is more FP3 (with the reduction formulas) than it is FP2. Oh well, FP2 or not, it's still a method :/ Fingers crossed for that question, though I've definitely screwed up Q8b with the polar area, I subtracted the areas instead of added them, if all else was correct, how many marks would I lose (it was out of 7)?
14. (Original post by taichingkan)
For me, at the time of the exam, it was unusual to see that I had to IBP twice and use I1=f(x)+kI which to me is more FP3 (with the reduction formulas) than it is FP2. Oh well, FP2 or not, it's still a method :/ Fingers crossed for that question, though I've definitely screwed up Q8b with the polar area, I subtracted the areas instead of added them, if all else was correct, how many marks would I lose (it was out of 7)?
Should only lose you two.
15. (Original post by Euclidean)
Can you do it faster than Gauss tho?
He's dead now, so I hope so.
16. Surely the majority of the candidates found this paper unfair, one way or another. Anyone down for a petition? As in like one of those simple online ones...like from http://www.ipetitions.com/ for example. Surely Edexcel will respond in some positive way that will benefit the poor, sinful souls that sat this abominable exam?
17. (Original post by Geethan)
Surely the majority of the candidates found this paper unfair, one way or another. Anyone down for a petition? As in like one of those simple online ones...like from http://www.ipetitions.com/ for example. Surely Edexcel will respond in some positive way that will benefit the poor, sinful souls that sat this abominable exam?
God, please, no. This is pathetic.
18. (Original post by Geethan)
Surely the majority of the candidates found this paper unfair, one way or another. Anyone down for a petition? As in like one of those simple online ones...like from http://www.ipetitions.com/ for example. Surely Edexcel will respond in some positive way that will benefit the poor, sinful souls that sat this abominable exam?
A petition would be absolutely useless. I did this exam and I admittedly didn't spot that double IBP was required, but it is most certainly a prerequisite from C4 and Edexcel were well within their rights to set this question, as well as the others.
19. (Original post by Zacken)
Should only lose you two.
Thank you!
20. What do you need to get an A in FM??

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 24, 2017
Today on TSR

### University rankings 2019

Cambridge at number one

### I have imposter syndrome at Cambridge

Poll
Useful resources

Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsStudy Help rules and posting guidelinesLaTex guide for writing equations on TSR

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE