You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Edexcel S3 - Wednesday 25th May AM 2016 watch

1. Posted from TSR Mobile

I rounded both up. Do you reckon we'll lose a mark for that? I doubt it
2. (Original post by Jelly150)
Posted from TSR Mobile

I rounded both up. Do you reckon we'll lose a mark for that? I doubt it

I also did this. But I don't think it will make a big difference to the final answer. I think it is fine? ? ?
3. Posted from TSR Mobile

It will make no difference to the final answer. It also did say to 2 decimal places. In previous mark schemes it says give a mark for answers between two certain numbers. So it should be fine and get full marks as long as everything else is correct.
4. (Original post by ninjass)
My answers - I thought t was fairly standard

1a) More representative, individual strata estimates availiable
1b) random process, no interviewer bias

2) 5.61 and I think you rejected

3a) When the data isn't bivariate noral
b) 0.75 and I think you rejected
You accepted the pmcc question
e) You HAD TO say about ranks - days where sales of ice cream ranked highly, ranked highly for sunglasses

4a) 0.7794
b) 760,302.25
c) 0.0107

5a) 1.95 and you rejected
b) Var of sample = var of population. Samples are independent of each other. CANT MENTION CLT - as its not an assumption, it's a thorem
c) tricky - 12.7

6a) Test statistic was 4.1 and you accepted
b) r= 26.78 s= 16.07
c) Test statistic was 14.65 you reject

7a) 19.15%,19.85%
b) Paul shoud tell them to lover stated weight
c) n=44

Who agrees?
YES for 7c I got 44 but two guys doing it with me got 27! As it said 0.9 as probability I used the 0.05 z value which is 1.6449 (0.05 either side = 0.9 total), whereas they used 1.2816 which is the 0.1 z value. Glad someone else saw it my way, I thought I'd definitely lost the marks
5. Fair to say:
A- 65/66
A*- 70/71

Given it was slightly harder than fp2 June 2015 I'd guess similarish but also less people do stats 3 than fp2 so might be the same.
6. did the paragraph in q6 say p=0.3 was estimated? or did they say she believes p=0.3 in the binomial goodness of fit.
7. does anyone remember the full solution for question 5a to reach the answer 1.95?
8. Think i got 73/75 cri.

But it's stats I don't really care. I have no interest in playing Edexcel's stupid games and jump through their stupid hoops any more... just gets in the way of real math

I'm not bitter

Posted from TSR Mobile
9. (Original post by physicsmaths)
did the paragraph in q6 say p=0.3 was estimated? or did they say she believes p=0.3 in the binomial goodness of fit.
"believes that the data can be modelled by Binomial distribution with p = 0.3" i think which means the "believes" part refers to the Binomial part of the question and 0.3 wasn't estimated.
10. (Original post by coolguy123456)
"believes that the data can be modelled by Binomial distribution with p = 0.3" i think which means the "believes" part refers to the Binomial part of the question and 0.3 wasn't estimated.
good!, gues i havent lost more stupid marks!
11. (Original post by physicsmaths)
good!, gues i havent lost more stupid marks!
That is what i believe any way, I doubt they'd say that and so far everyone has got the same answer .
12. Do you reckon putting "population divided into naturally occurring, mutually exclusive groups" would score no points in 1 a? Also, for 3a, would it be ok to say "ranks more important than numerical values"?
13. (Original post by Rkai01)
Large populations is for systematic though. I'm annoyed I didn't write for large samples but donno about large population dude
I think I wrote large populations/samples cos I wasn't sure haha. I really should've went for "representative" though

Posted from TSR Mobile
14. I wrote binomial (50,0.3) instead of (4,0.3) Would I loose the hypothesis mark B1? Would i loose any other mark? I stated (50,0.3) in the conclusion aswell will i loose a mark?

If anyone can write out what they remember from the questions then maybe we can all retry the questions properly & form an unofficial mark scheme!
15. (Original post by Rkai01)
Fair to say:
A- 65/66
A*- 70/71

Given it was slightly harder than fp2 June 2015 I'd guess similarish but also less people do stats 3 than fp2 so might be the same.
i don't see why you compare it to a fp2 paper when this is an s3 paper. comparing to last year's s3 paper which was much harder, i think the gb's will be A*>72, A>66 p.s. last year's fp2 paper was considered to be quite easy i think
16. (Original post by Euclidean)
What exactly are you talking about? The estimator for sample mean or sample variance?
The new estimation of the variance on the addition of the new data.
17. (Original post by lai812matthew)
i don't see why you compare it to a fp2 paper when this is an s3 paper. comparing to last year's s3 paper which was much harder, i think the gb's will be A*>72, A>66 p.s. last year's fp2 paper was considered to be quite easy i think
This is clearly inaccurate: A* boundaries for past few years:
70
69
68
68
69 (71)
66

It has never been >70 except on an R paper.
This paper also had several tricks (CLT not at assumption, lose 2 DoF for a chi squared test) and because there were 3 chi squared was on the time pressured side => less time to check => more silly mistakes). Predict A* boundary 68 -69. No way is it 71 let alone higher.
18. 8lol 72 for an A* hahhahahahahaha. banter the paper was abit tricky not trivial. M3 was trivial this year and A* will be atmost 70 i think.
19. (Original post by Random1357)
This is clearly inaccurate: A* boundaries for past few years:
70
69
68
68
69 (71)
66

It has never been >70 except on an R paper.
This paper also had several tricks (CLT not at assumption, lose 2 DoF for a chi squared test) and because there were 3 chi squared was on the time pressured side => less time to check => more silly mistakes). Predict A* boundary 68 -69. No way is it 71 let alone higher.
maybe i did not take enough samples of fp2 to consider then, making my standard error large, my fault then...... they do have a very small deviate of marks for each year comparing to other subjects lol.
20. (Original post by Random1357)
This is clearly inaccurate: A* boundaries for past few years:
70
69
68
68
69 (71)
66

It has never been >70 except on an R paper.
This paper also had several tricks (CLT not at assumption, lose 2 DoF for a chi squared test) and because there were 3 chi squared was on the time pressured side => less time to check => more silly mistakes). Predict A* boundary 68 -69. No way is it 71 let alone higher.
I wrote clt and sample variance you think I'll still get the mark?

### Related university courses

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: June 29, 2016
Today on TSR

### A level Maths discussions

Find out how you've done here

### 2,630

students online now

Exam discussions

### Find your exam discussion here

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