MEI A Level Further Maths Core Pure 22nd May 2024

8

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 year ago)

Reply 1

kieranward0

3

matrix 4 marker was a proof by induction pretty sure (i hope so as thats what i did lol)

Reply 2

sppm726

12

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

insaanes

OP

8

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

Reply 4

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

Reply 5

BlueSeahorse08

1

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

Reply 6

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

sppm726

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

I guessed and said that there was more salt entering than liquid leaving. ☹️

Reply 8

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

sppm726

12

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

insaanes

OP

8

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

Reply 11

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

insaanes

OP

8

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

insaanes

OP

8

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

Reply 14

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

Reply 15

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

insaanes

OP

8

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)

Reply 17

chiIdofcabin13

3

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

insaanes

OP

8

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

xx4560

1

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?

MEI A Level Further Maths Core Pure 22nd May 2024

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you