Edexcel C1/C2 June 2014

Scroll to see replies

the exam was no harder than any of the past papers and it was all in the spec why is there a dumb petition

Does anyone know how many marks I would have lost for completing the square 3y^2-9y+18=0 then getting one result for x by using logs? I wrote down y=3^x but made stupid mistake in equation hence above. Will they give ft marks if correct? Thanks

Reply 602

SpartanN7

Feeling so much happier after seeing that!
I counted a definite 58 marks (possible errors in memory could bring it down a maximum of a few). Hopefully I got a mark or three on top of that for my working on the area of the shape and the tan trig question. Really hopefully I'll sneak 80 ums on this paper :biggrin:

Really ought to sleep for chemistry tomorrow now though... Dam adrenaline!!

Reply 603

IntenseTestTakin

Original post by rapunzelsa

the exam was no harder than any of the past papers and it was all in the spec why is there a dumb petition

Might be due to the new one year one exam rule.

Reply 604

SpartanN7

On the geometric series question does trial and error get full marks? It doesn't specify you can't so surely it should? Though I am aware they do expect you to know part of the question that isn't there sometimes...

Reply 605

NikolaT

Original post by SpartanN7

I tried trial and error for homework exercises from the textbook for my teacher - I got 0 marks each time for those answers, with a big, belittling, red-inked comment of 'NO MARKS FOR TRIAL AND ERROR'.

It might have been a scare tactic to just learn the maths and apply it, or the fact that t&e genuinely gets no marks. Either way, I never t&e'd again.

Reply 606

SpartanN7

Original post by NikolaT

Yeah, I was afraid of this. I tried to do it properly but it kept failing and I ended up just trial and erroring it and moving on. My method was correct though for my initial attempts, hopefully I'll at least get marks for that... Even if it is half crossed out :rolleyes:

Reply 607

chrisdb793

Original post by bellend1

I think you put your inequality sign the wrong way round. I had n > 43.19 so it had to be at least 44 (needed to be a whole number).

Oh jesus I'm a retard, for some reason in my ****ed up world of maths 0.5-160 = 155.5 so my answer at the end was n=27.

Oh well, hopefully I'll get method marks later on as that was my only mistake

Reply 608

diseasedneckbeard

Original post by chrisdb793

Oh jesus I'm a retard, for some reason in my ****ed up world of maths 0.5-160 = 155.5 so my answer at the end was n=27.

Oh well, hopefully I'll get method marks later on as that was my only mistake