Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    I am not sure how harsh they will be, although I feel a lot of people will have probably jumped to the answers so it shouldn't be too bad. The induction wasn't too bad for me. I messed it up a couple of times by trying to factor everything, but then just ended up expanding most if it out and getting it in the right form at the end. Although you should only lose 2/3 marks as long as you did everything else right.
    Does working out for a/b mean indicating x = -2 and x=0.5 are vertical assymptotes?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    I am not sure how harsh they will be, although I feel a lot of people will have probably jumped to the answers so it shouldn't be too bad. The induction wasn't too bad for me. I messed it up a couple of times by trying to factor everything, but then just ended up expanding most if it out and getting it in the right form at the end. Although you should only lose 2/3 marks as long as you did everything else right.
    Well I did everything right, Got to 1/3 (cubic), Put the cubic in my calculator and it gave me the right roots. But I didn't know what step to show from going to 1/3(cubic) to the right answer, as it seems a little far stretched just to show factorised form without any working out. In the end that's what I did, but I still wasted 30 minutes trying to find a better way to show the answer. A lot of people in my school did the same but whether they will give this as an correct answer, I don't know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKBrah)
    Does working out for a/b mean indicating x = -2 and x=0.5 are vertical assymptotes?
    Well I just said what the asymptotes were, then showed how they related to constants. I don't think you would drop any marks for not pointing it out though. I got that a=2, b=2 and c=3, which makes perfect sense when you explain what the asymptotes must be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dada55)
    Well I did everything right, Got to 1/3 (cubic), Put the cubic in my calculator and it gave me the right roots. But I didn't know what step to show from going to 1/3(cubic) to the right answer, as it seems a little far stretched just to show factorised form without any working out. In the end that's what I did, but I still wasted 30 minutes trying to find a better way to show the answer. A lot of people in my school did the same but whether they will give this as an correct answer, I don't know.
    You should have said assume true for n=k
    Replaced the n's with k's.

    Then said n=k+1
    Got the cubic which should have factored into the original equation you in k, but instead had k+1 where k was.
    Then said it must be true for n=k+1

    Then found n=1, and written your conclusion. That is what I did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    You should have said assume true for n=k
    Replaced the n's with k's.

    Then said n=k+1
    Got the cubic which should have factored into the original equation you in k, but instead had k+1 where k was.
    Then said it must be true for n=k+1

    Then found n=1, and written your conclusion. That is what I did.
    Yeah that's what I did as well, sorry for not making it clear, Its just that I though it was wrong when doing the algebra, to go from 1/3(cubic) to 1/3(K+1)(K+3)(K-1) as there is no working out showing how you knew that cubic factorises into that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    Well I just said what the asymptotes were, then showed how they related to constants. I don't think you would drop any marks for not pointing it out though. I got that a=2, b=2 and c=3, which makes perfect sense when you explain what the asymptotes must be.
    Yeah man i clocked rational functions nicely, got 1<x<2 and -2<x<1/2 for the interval where f(x) <0.
    Im thinking that is one of those questions which reduces boundaries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dada55)
    Yeah that's what I did as well, sorry for not making it clear, Its just that I though it was wrong when doing the algebra, to go from 1/3(cubic) to 1/3(K+1)(K+3)(K-1) as there is no working out showing how you knew that cubic factorises into that.
    Ohhh, well that isn't too bad. You will probably lose a method mark, maybe 2 if they are being harsh. But as long as you did everything else well, then you shouldn't lose much,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKBrah)
    Yeah man i clocked rational functions nicely, got 1<x<2 and -2<x<1/2 for the interval where f(x) <0.
    Im thinking that is one of those questions which reduces boundaries.
    Yeah, I am pretty sure that is what I got. I found x when y=1, then got 2 values. Then used them and the asymptotes to form the inequalities. I think y=1 when x=1 and x=2. So the inequalities would be between them and the asymptotes.

    On the graph, did you put a minimum on your sketch on the right hand side?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    Yeah, I am pretty sure that is what I got. I found x when y=1, then got 2 values. Then used them and the asymptotes to form the inequalities. I think y=1 when x=1 and x=2. So the inequalities would be between them and the asymptotes.

    On the graph, did you put a minimum on your sketch on the right hand side?
    I actually did then rubbed it out and did a normal-ish curve, the one with the minimum point looked ugly lol.
    They dont penalize you for it, havent in previous papers. If Im correct as x -> +infinity, the curve approached the HA from below so you had to cut the HA right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKBrah)
    I actually did then rubbed it out and did a normal-ish curve, the one with the minimum point looked ugly lol.
    They dont penalize you for it, havent in previous papers. If Im correct as x -> +infinity, the curve approached the HA from below so you had to cut the HA right?
    Yeah. I got this:
    When x=100, y=1.48... So approaches from below as HA=1.5
    When x=-100, y=1.52... So approaches from above

    So the left hand side went above and went straight up, and the right hand side came from below, then went up through the HA. Although I thought you had to put in a minimum whenever a curve crosses the HA?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    another walk in the park
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone quickly write down what they did for 9? I need to know before I can go off in peace and do NM :l

    I got:
    i) Rotation 90 degrees clockwise centre (0,0)
    ii) P(-2,2)
    iii) y = -x
    iv) y = 6
    v) showed that det(M) =0 and so is singular, didn't do the other part so -1 mark?
    vi) R = QM, and points are mapped onto the line y=x?

    Cheers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    Yeah. I got this:
    When x=100, y=1.48... So approaches from below as HA=1.5
    When x=-100, y=1.52... So approaches from above

    So the left hand side went above and went straight up, and the right hand side came from below, then went up through the HA. Although I thought you had to put in a minimum whenever a curve crosses the HA?
    Yeah thats exactly what I did.

    Probs man, my curve had a tiny minimum but if i was to be penalized over it then who cares. Im looking at 69-70/72 assuming my working for the others is top notch. Do you think 69-70 in this paper is 100UMS?

    My mate got 61 on the previous one in Jan and still got 100UMS, albeit the boundary for an A was 48!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKBrah)
    Yeah thats exactly what I did.

    Probs man, my curve had a tiny minimum but if i was to be penalized over it then who cares. Im looking at 69/72 assuming my working for the others is top notch. Do you think 69 in this paper is 100UMS?

    My mate got 61 on the previous one in Jan and still got 100UMS, albeit the boundary for an A was 48!
    I did the one in Jan and only got a B (mainly because it was horrific), hence why I just resat it. I have got around 65-70 for most of my past papers, and I thought this paper was pretty easy. Most people seem to have got the same answers for Q 9 which was the only question I was worried about, so hopefully I will get 67+. Assuming the grade boundaries are around 56 or under, it should be very close to 100 UMS, if not 100.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    I did the one in Jan and only got a B (mainly because it was horrific), hence why I just resat it. I have got around 65-70 for most of my past papers, and I thought this paper was pretty easy. Most people seem to have got the same answers for Q 9 which was the only question I was worried about, so hopefully I will get 67+. Assuming the grade boundaries are around 56 and under, it should be very close to 100 UMS, if not 100.
    I didn't do the Jan paper cause I decided I wanted to do further maths in Jan so I self-taught FP1, not a bad job tbh.

    I really want a high UMS score, cause my NM/D1 scores will be trash as ****.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I thought this paper was really nice, apart from part v) to the last question. I wonder how the grade boundaries will turn out to be like... I'm thinking they might be quite high as the questions were pretty straight forward.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKBrah)
    I didn't do the Jan paper cause I decided I wanted to do further maths in Jan so I self-taught FP1, not a bad job tbh.

    I really want a high UMS score, cause my NM/D1 scores will be trash as ****.
    I did AS maths (C1, C2 and D1) last year, then decided I wanted to do full A level maths and further maths. So I had to do FP1 in January, but most people in my class were resitting it so they were already way more prepared than I was.
    D1 is kind of an awkward test, I only got 70 UMS, but my 90 in C1 should average it out to an A. I would say D1 is a bit easier than FP1 though, as long as you understand everything it is not like they throw anything too bad at you in the test most of the time, although they are pretty weird.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny7bell)
    I did AS maths (C1, C2 and D1) last year, then decided I wanted to do full A level maths and further maths. So I had to do FP1 in January, but most people in my class were resitting it so they were already way more prepared than I was.
    D1 is kind of an awkward test, I only got 70 UMS, but my 90 in C1 should average it out to an A. I would say D1 is a bit easier than FP1 though, as long as you understand everything it is not like they throw anything too bad at you in the test most of the time, although they are pretty weird.
    Sick scores mate, I got 97 UMS in Jan C1 and im trying to get even higher in C2 so I can make space for errors in S1 which Im not gonna do well in.

    With my AS further maths, Im doing NM/D1 with FP1 which isn't ideal for me. I got NM on friday, no clue how that'll go down. D1 is on the 6th of June so obvs a while to go. Im not gonna lie, I don't know crap for it.. Only know a bit on algorithms like bin packing etc/the minimum connector algorithms are decent/CPA I have no clue on/LP is ok and simulation no clue about it. From the 24th of May im gonna have 2 exams which are CHEM2 on the 4th and D1 on the 6th. Assuming my chem revision goes well, is 24th to 6th june enough time to get myself a high B/A in D1?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Guys do we get a certificate for AS Further Maths along with our AS Maths grade or is it just gonna be AS Maths on our certificate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matt_dragon)
    Guys do we get a certificate for AS Further Maths along with our AS Maths grade or is it just gonna be AS Maths on our certificate?
    they're defo two seperate qualifications, so AS maths/AS further maths.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.