The Student Room Group

MEI A Level Further Maths Core Pure 22nd May 2024

couldn't find a thread for this exam so made my own! :P

how'd everyone find it?? i think it was pretty reasonable, the parametric hyperbolic question was nasty tho :s also no proof by induction, no shm, no trig substitution integration...

watching edexcel ppl celebrate rn is rlly funny (and also annoying bc i feel like mei has never had a good paper LOL)
(edited 1 month ago)

Scroll to see replies

matrix 4 marker was a proof by induction pretty sure (i hope so as thats what i did lol)
Reply 2
Original post by kieranward0
matrix 4 marker was a proof by induction pretty sure (i hope so as thats what i did lol)
I also used proof by induction. I struggled for space, but assumed it had to be the proof by induction as we always have the question.
Reply 3
Original post by sppm726
I also used proof by induction. I struggled for space, but assumed it had to be the proof by induction as we always have the question.

not gonna lie, i assumed it had to be explicitly stated that we need to prove using induction since other types of proof r also on the spec. if it was a proof by induction ... well. awkward LOL
Original post by kieranward0
matrix 4 marker was a proof by induction pretty sure (i hope so as thats what i did lol)

yep, was similar wording to a past paper question which was pbi
Original post by insaanes
couldn't find a thread for this exam so made my own! :P
how'd everyone find it?? i think it was pretty reasonable, the parametric hyperbolic question was nasty tho :s also no proof by induction, no shm, no trig substitution integration...
watching edexcel ppl celebrate rn is rlly funny (and also annoying bc i feel like mei has never had a good paper LOL)
(@Evil Homer !!!!!!!!!!! Hi )

yeah a pretty tame paper. I wasn't expecting to see a parametrics question, but I could do it anyway so didn't matter
Original post by insaanes
couldn't find a thread for this exam so made my own! :P
how'd everyone find it?? i think it was pretty reasonable, the parametric hyperbolic question was nasty tho :s also no proof by induction, no shm, no trig substitution integration...
watching edexcel ppl celebrate rn is rlly funny (and also annoying bc i feel like mei has never had a good paper LOL)
(@Evil Homer !!!!!!!!!!! Hi )

also more generally I found the paper pretty good, none of the maths caught me out but I think my explanation on the last question could have been better
Reply 7
Original post by chiIdofcabin13
also more generally I found the paper pretty good, none of the maths caught me out but I think my explanation on the last question could have been better

I guessed and said that there was more salt entering than liquid leaving. ☹️
Original post by sppm726
I guessed and said that there was more salt entering than liquid leaving. ☹️

I said (incorrectly) that as the addition of salt would increase the volume the concentration at any one time would decrease so the rate of salt loss would decrease so the conc salt over time would increase
the correct answer is that as the salt doesn't instantaneously mix through the entire solution, the concentration at the bottom is less than conc at top, so less salt is lost then expected over time
Reply 9
I was so ready to say 2cosx = z + 1/z and then nothing!!!!

….Except maybe it was needed for the integration of aSin3x, which I gave up on because I hate polar coordinates.
Reply 10
Original post by sppm726
I was so ready to say 2cosx = z + 1/z and then nothing!!!!
….Except maybe it was needed for the integration of aSin3x, which I gave up on because I hate polar coordinates.

LOL REAL i didnt use that in there, only the squared identities for that q. wished the series question was the more traditional higher mark dmv type
Original post by sppm726
I was so ready to say 2cosx = z + 1/z and then nothing!!!!
….Except maybe it was needed for the integration of aSin3x, which I gave up on because I hate polar coordinates.

(it was not but like a fun idea lmao)
((square asin3x and then cos6x=1-2sin²3x))
(((iirc answer was πa²/12)))
Reply 12
Original post by chiIdofcabin13
also more generally I found the paper pretty good, none of the maths caught me out but I think my explanation on the last question could have been better

same! i think a lot of people found it okay, heard some say it was hard. personally, having done all the past/practice papers for the current spec, i found it to be similar to those. some questions (especially the transformations question) seemed sooo similar to questions ive seen before, the only difference i can remember is something else being used instead of lambda
Reply 13
Original post by chiIdofcabin13
(it was not but like a fun idea lmao)
((square asin3x and then cos6x=1-2sin²3x))
(((iirc answer was πa²/12)))

yeah, i think thats what i got too! i found that question to be nice. though, for the sketch, was it just the bottom round part that was meant to be in a broken line? i always struggle with the sketching but can easily do the integration in polar coordinates :s
Original post by insaanes
same! i think a lot of people found it okay, heard some say it was hard. personally, having done all the past/practice papers for the current spec, i found it to be similar to those. some questions (especially the transformations question) seemed sooo similar to questions ive seen before, the only difference i can remember is something else being used instead of lambda

everyone I know said the paper was good which is low-key concerning, but yeh was very similar to past papers, especially the salt one and the chemical one which were basically identical
Original post by insaanes
yeah, i think thats what i got too! i found that question to be nice. though, for the sketch, was it just the bottom round part that was meant to be in a broken line? i always struggle with the sketching but can easily do the integration in polar coordinates :s

yeh was like an upside down clover with the bottom 'leaf' dashed (probably a terrible explanation for anyone who drew it incorrectly lmao)
Reply 16
Original post by chiIdofcabin13
yeh was like an upside down clover with the bottom 'leaf' dashed (probably a terrible explanation for anyone who drew it incorrectly lmao)

yeah no thats how describe it too! i usually use my graphical calculator to draw the actual graph out then figure out teh negative parts backwards (which is. not how ur meant ot do it but if it works it works lmao)
Original post by insaanes
yeah no thats how describe it too! i usually use my graphical calculator to draw the actual graph out then figure out teh negative parts backwards (which is. not how ur meant ot do it but if it works it works lmao)

I don't have a graphical calculator 😔 had to use the table function
Reply 18
Original post by chiIdofcabin13
I don't have a graphical calculator 😔 had to use the table function

i bought one for 20 quid off ebay 2 years ago cuz i cldnt graph for the actual life of me HAHAHAH ppl w the 120 quid one acc kill me inside tho...
Reply 19
Original post by insaanes
couldn't find a thread for this exam so made my own! :P
how'd everyone find it?? i think it was pretty reasonable, the parametric hyperbolic question was nasty tho :s also no proof by induction, no shm, no trig substitution integration...
watching edexcel ppl celebrate rn is rlly funny (and also annoying bc i feel like mei has never had a good paper LOL)
(@Evil Homer !!!!!!!!!!! Hi )

remind me what was the parametric equation question?

Quick Reply