Carrotsticks
Retired
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,494
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Here are my HSC Solutions for this year.
Please feel free to hit me up with a message if you see anything that may be incorrect/needs clarifying!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dthlsed7gfknygt/HSC 2014 Extension 2 Solutions.pdf?dl=0
My comments on this year's paper:
- Not particular interesting or inspiring.
- Some results were mis-leading in the sense that they were not required to be used to solve the problem. Almost as if they wrote the question with a very specific method in mind, without realising that the result they were building towards could have been proven in a few lines.
- No probability or perms & combs? That's new (or at least as far as my memory goes).
- No explicit induction problem? I know that we want to promote some sort of Mathematical creativity, but you can do that without having to leave out something like that.
- Partial fractions twice?
- t formula twice? (for those who didn't realise that you could have just differentiated for the 't formula MC question'.
- Question 9 of MC, why is that in an Extension 2 paper?
- Some of the wording is a bit strange (ie: why did they have to say 'real' in Q12 (b) (ii)?, Q14 (a) (ii), did they mean 'non-real'?).
- Q14 (b) (i) needs absolute values on the sine and cosine functions.
- Q15 (c) (ii), quadratic formula, really? Also, how is this related to the other parts?
- Q16 (c) the reason why I never put such questions in my exams (least of all as the last question), is because there may always be a way to get it out in a few lines, which there was (reverse quotient rule).
Please feel free to hit me up with a message if you see anything that may be incorrect/needs clarifying!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dthlsed7gfknygt/HSC 2014 Extension 2 Solutions.pdf?dl=0
My comments on this year's paper:
- Not particular interesting or inspiring.
- Some results were mis-leading in the sense that they were not required to be used to solve the problem. Almost as if they wrote the question with a very specific method in mind, without realising that the result they were building towards could have been proven in a few lines.
- No probability or perms & combs? That's new (or at least as far as my memory goes).
- No explicit induction problem? I know that we want to promote some sort of Mathematical creativity, but you can do that without having to leave out something like that.
- Partial fractions twice?
- t formula twice? (for those who didn't realise that you could have just differentiated for the 't formula MC question'.
- Question 9 of MC, why is that in an Extension 2 paper?
- Some of the wording is a bit strange (ie: why did they have to say 'real' in Q12 (b) (ii)?, Q14 (a) (ii), did they mean 'non-real'?).
- Q14 (b) (i) needs absolute values on the sine and cosine functions.
- Q15 (c) (ii), quadratic formula, really? Also, how is this related to the other parts?
- Q16 (c) the reason why I never put such questions in my exams (least of all as the last question), is because there may always be a way to get it out in a few lines, which there was (reverse quotient rule).
Last edited: