This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Edexcel A-level Pure Maths 1 - 5th June 2019 [Exam Discussion]

Reply 1380

nb4770

3

I got 33/10 ln3 - 24/5 ln2 for the 8 marker, anyone else?

Reply 1381

NSRyan

8

It's 1.05^16. Think about it this way: if you put 1.05^1 you get back to your first term, 6.3 (this is when you have 1 term). You want 16 terms (5 to 20 inclusive), so it's a power of 16.

Original post by Duck3E

i did the other way but i believe 173 is the correct answer but what i don't get is if you have done this:

6+6+6+6= 24
then used 6.3(1-1.05^15)/ 1-1.05

u get a different answer assuming u start from 6.3 being a

Reply 1382

ninja_uchiha

12

i'm so gutted that i forgot partial fractions for the integration on question 8

Reply 1383

JJJJJAAAAMES

21

Could someone go through these

https://imgur.com/a/WQXfml0

also would I get the marks if I wrote -kt as the power and k = ln4/5
?

Reply 1384

Notnek

21

Original post by RedGiant

Because you are ignoring the fact that last year's cohort was completely different. The grade A boundary was WAY lower than the A* boundary, and the gap between A and A* was huge. Which is because of the majority of students who sat it last year were further maths students who had a higher ability on average.

Boundaries were manually adjusted last year so that in theory the boundaries last year should mimic any normal year. This was so that last year's students weren't disadvantaged at all. So it's possible that the boundaries this year will be similar but that depends on the overall difficulty of the exams compared to last year.

Reply 1385

h20head

10

are u kidding me???? last year's paper had only 3-4 challenging Qs, this year's was pure cancer wtf

Original post by FrontOfficeBllr

No, i genuinely believe the A* boundary will be close to last years. Compare this years pure 1 paper to last years, they are of the same difficulty, so why would the grade boundaries drastically change?

Reply 1386

Duck3E

10

i agree to a degree, that last years paper can be used to reference that more higher ability students have compelted a paper which was drastically harder than the older A Level specification, this years paper based of opinions (TSR+Twitter and other colleges that I have friends from) say this paper was slightly easier than last year. Yes I know this isn't the whole of England etc but gathering all of this i assume as an educated guess the boundaries would be roughly the same but the A* and A gap will be a lot smaller

Original post by RedGiant

Because you are ignoring the fact that last year's cohort was completely different. The grade A boundary was WAY lower than the A* boundary, and the gap between A and A* was huge. Which is because of the majority of students who sat it last year were further maths students who had a higher ability on average.

Reply 1387

creamochi

2

With the n^2+2 question, I see people saying it’s proof by contradiction. I didn’t think it said by contradiction. All I did was sub n=even and n=odd then showed it wasn’t a multiple of 4. How was the question meant to be done?

Reply 1388

applesauce5

4

because the only people who did the paper last year were students who were doing further maths, so on average they should have gotten better marks than this students this year. if the papers are the same difficulty, the grade boundaries should be lower than last year

Original post by FrontOfficeBllr

No, i genuinely believe the A* boundary will be close to last years. Compare this years pure 1 paper to last years, they are of the same difficulty, so why would the grade boundaries drastically change?

Reply 1389

Duck3E

10

Original post by NSRyan

It's 1.05^16. Think about it this way: if you put 1.05^1 you get back to your first term, 6.3 (this is when you have 1 term). You want 16 terms (5 to 20 inclusive), so it's a power of 16.

even with 16 u get a different answer

Reply 1390

Duck3E

10

yes you would because ln4/5 is a negative value

Original post by JJJJJAAAAMES

Could someone go through these

https://imgur.com/a/WQXfml0

also would I get the marks if I wrote -kt as the power and k = ln4/5
?

Reply 1391

neverstudying

11

It could be done in several ways. The question didn't state a specific way of proof, I know mates who used contradiction while I used the odd/even approach. As long as the method is rigorous and concrete there shouldn't be a problem

Original post by creamochi

With the n^2+2 question, I see people saying it’s proof by contradiction. I didn’t think it said by contradiction. All I did was sub n=even and n=odd then showed it wasn’t a multiple of 4. How was the question meant to be done?

Reply 1392

h20head

10

Me too

for some idiotic reason I split the numerator and denom and only did partial for the fractional value lololol

Original post by ninja_uchiha

i'm so gutted that i forgot partial fractions for the integration on question 8

Reply 1393

username4591754

8

I am aware, they recognised that the candidates sitting the exam were of a higher ability, so they adjusted the number of people getting each grade accordingly. This means the grade boundaries reflect as if a normal cohort sat that paper.

Original post by RedGiant

Because you are ignoring the fact that last year's cohort was completely different. The grade A boundary was WAY lower than the A* boundary, and the gap between A and A* was huge. Which is because of the majority of students who sat it last year were further maths students who had a higher ability on average.

Reply 1394

thekidwhogames

18

Original post by RedGiant

A* won't be 88%. Throwing out predictions like these are completely pointless. And last year it was 76% for an A*, so think again mate.

Paper 1 last year was 87

Reply 1395

RedGiant

22

Original post by thekidwhogames

Paper 1 last year was 87

Overall it was 76%

Reply 1396

NSRyan

8

I just did it again and got the same thing. I will write out EXACTLY what I enter into my calc :smile:

24 + (6*1.05(1-1.05^16))/1-1.05

Original post by Duck3E

even with 16 u get a different answer

Reply 1397

JJJJJAAAAMES

21

Original post by Duck3E

yes you would because ln4/5 is a negative value

I know ln 4/5 is negative, but I used the formula v= 20000xe^-(ln4/5)t is this the right formula?

I put a negative before the ln4/5

Reply 1398

UrBusted

14

Original post by creamochi

With the n^2+2 question, I see people saying it’s proof by contradiction. I didn’t think it said by contradiction. All I did was sub n=even and n=odd then showed it wasn’t a multiple of 4. How was the question meant to be done?

I tried 4 consecutive values where at least one was dividable by 4, (4k, 4k+1, 4k+2, 4k+3) because a multiple of 4 should occur every 4 numbers, and when put it into the equation, none were a multiple of 4. Seen lots of different methods for it too. I'm quite sure it didn't say contradiction, the guy who posted the paper just removed it.