Can u successfully complain abt sumthing they tested thats not in syllabus? (1 Viewer)

[kooltrainer]

Can u complain about something thats not explicitly stated in the syllabus.. like in my trials, they have these random questions like define feedstock .. and ask us to prove something is amphoteric using equations.. amphoteric stuff isnt in syllabus yeh?? so can we complain abt it?? i no we can complain abt everything , i mean a successful complaint where they'll give a free mark to everyone in the grade etc..

Can we also complain abt sumthing they did not say was going to be tested??.. in Our physics trial, my teacher said de brogilie's equation wavelength = h/mv .. wont be tested .. but in our test, we had to use that equation to find the velocity of a proton fired etc.. and i dun think theres any other way to do that question except that formula

 

[jessi90]

define feedstock in a chemistry exam? that's definitely not right

 

[tau281290]

Can u complain about something thats not explicitly stated in the syllabus.. like in my trials, they have these random questions like define feedstock .. and ask us to prove something is amphoteric using equations.. amphoteric stuff isnt in syllabus yeh?? so can we complain abt it?? i no we can complain abt everything , i mean a successful complaint where they'll give a free mark to everyone in the grade etc..

Can we also complain abt sumthing they did not say was going to be tested??.. in Our physics trial, my teacher said de brogilie's equation wavelength = h/mv .. wont be tested .. but in our test, we had to use that equation to find the velocity of a proton fired etc.. and i dun think theres any other way to do that question except that formula

No point giving a free mark to everyone, everyone's ranks are still the same. So everyone is equal now.

And they can test something that they explicitly say it will not be in the exams, happens all the time in my school.

Defining feedstock, hmm, may be a little common sense?



Afterall, your complains will not be very succssful. Even if teachers change your marks, it wouldn't make a big difference in ranks.

 

[Darrow]

No point giving a free mark to everyone, everyone's ranks are still the same. So everyone is equal now.

Not if some people got the question right whilst others got it wrong
If its not in the syllabus, it shouldnt be tested
Soo it should be excluded

But amphoteric is in the syllabus isnt it?

 

[minijumbuk]

But amphoteric is in the syllabus isnt it?

No. Only amphiprotic substances.

 

[Riet]

No. Only amphiprotic substances.

same thing, more or less.

Edit: Also if you don't understand lambda=h/mv you fail anyway.

 

[Bainesy]

its the same thing. and its not even close to being a differenent thing. unless you have graduated from uni with a science degree, the two words have identical meanings. if you simply gave equations for an amphiprotic substance instead of an amphoteric, you would still get the marks, cause its the same thing.

but im thinking you didnt even do that and you want to scab marks.

feedstock is a little more of a solid argument. but even so you should definately have come across it in your studies and have been able to get the 1mk off the cuff

 

[white ferret]

im sure you can complain for the second... but it might have a catch.

during our last biology prac exam, we were tested on something that they didnt include in the exam rubric. because it consituted for around 20% of the exam, we had to resit the prac a week later.

 

[iEdd]

Amphoteric means it can act as an acid or base. Amphiprotic means it can donate or accept a proton (ie. obey Bronsted Lowry definitions of acid and bases). That means all amphiprotic substances are amphoteric (not necessarily vise versa though). For the question, if you proved it was amphiprotic, you would've essentially proved that it must be amphoteric.

 

[minijumbuk]

All amphiprotic substances are amphoteric, but not necessarily all amphoteric oxides are amphiprotic.

I think...

I read it off somewhere...Might've been wikipedia, forgot.

 

[namburger]

Can u complain about something thats not explicitly stated in the syllabus.. like in my trials, they have these random questions like define feedstock .. and ask us to prove something is amphoteric using equations.. amphoteric stuff isnt in syllabus yeh?? so can we complain abt it?? i no we can complain abt everything , i mean a successful complaint where they'll give a free mark to everyone in the grade etc..

Can we also complain abt sumthing they did not say was going to be tested??.. in Our physics trial, my teacher said de brogilie's equation wavelength = h/mv .. wont be tested .. but in our test, we had to use that equation to find the velocity of a proton fired etc.. and i dun think theres any other way to do that question except that formula

Jacky.
1. If they gave everyone a mark, it would cause minimal changes to the ranks. Ranks matter not the mark
2. The marking criteria for that amphoteric question was changed. I wrote a dodgy equation and still got the mark
3. The de broigle's equation wasn't even needed in that exam. We just used it coz i had all of the variables given in the question. If we were smarter, we would of used the kinetic energy formula like a few students in our grade. How did they manage to do it if it wasn't in the syllabus

 

[henry08]

Feedstock is relevant to the syllabus.

 

[mecramarathon]

i got tested on measuring red shifts in my physics preliminary

WTF!????

oh well whatever its just the prelims

 

[Trebla]

Unless you post the actual questions here, we can't really say for sure.
BUT, remember that a major part of the syllabus is section 9.1 which is the SKILLS section. In other words you can be assessed on ANYTHING which requires you to use general scientific skills or apply what you know in unfamiliar situations such as graphing, unit conversions etc..

 

[mR sinister]

Well, what you have said in your chemistry exam..
about aphoteric and Feedstock.

They are both relevant to the syllabus, the syllabus dot points could cover anything or everything stated in the point,

For example the word 'biomass' is stated in one of the dot points, feedstock is related to biomass and therefore it is relevant to the syllabus.
The same goes for aphiprotic and aphoteric.

It's not always necessarily a simple answer to the syllabus dot point, it can be RELATED.

And remember guys, i wont be surpised if there's alot of questions which are not directly related to the syllabus in this years HSC, as they are running

out of different ways to name same questions!