Harder test this year? (1 Viewer)

[BlueCatBulletCD]

I've done 2008-2001 HSC past papers and I think this years is the hardest. Anyone agree?

 

[MzBiiBii]

yes! I felt like half the paper was probability! Prob coz it's my worst area...gahhhhhhhhhhh

 

[I Study Hard]

I felt it was easier then past papers. The only question in section 2 that i had a problem with was the raffle ticket one, the last multiple choice question threw me off, as did a couple of the ones towards the end of the multiple choice. But it wasn't a difficult test at all.

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

I felt it was easier then past papers. The only question in section 2 that i had a problem with was the raffle ticket one, the last multiple choice question threw me off, as did a couple of the ones towards the end of the multiple choice. But it wasn't a difficult test at all.

26c i) and iii) annoyed me. Can you tell me what you got (roughly) And now I think I did 27c wrong. But besides those it was a decent exam, just harder than previous years.

 

[muscleman09]

I've done 2008-2001 HSC past papers and I think this years is the hardest. Anyone agree?

I totally agree with you... i did 2001-2008 papers over last weekend, and was laughing because i was getting 75-86 for each of them... I was like.. omg im not that bad...this test was WTF The multichoice questions shouldve have been worth 2+ more...not 1...and yeh... probability made me sad..

 

[Ausy]

Yeah i also agree, i found all the past papers to be easier then this. Except the multis i found these multis easier but section 2 harder then previous years; i think the mean for the state will be low, and therefore scaled raw marks up significantly.

 

[I Study Hard]

Woops i meant to post this here.
26 (c) i. $2200 x 12 x 20 = $528,000
Its a reducing balance loan, so the compound interest formula wouldn't have worked because it wouldn't have taken into account the repayments she was making, so the interest wouldn't have come out right. The total was the repayments she was making multiplied by 12 to get how much she paid in a year and then multiplied by 20 to get the full amount. (i'm pretty sure thats right)

26 (c)ii. 300000 = M {(1 + (0.06/12))^240 - 1
-----------------------------
(0.06/12) (1 + (0.06/12)^240}

And then you work it out from there, and i think the calculated monthly repayment was slightly off what the bank was making her pay but not by very much

~the fraction is kind of wonky

 

[karmapolice]

Yeah i also agree, i found all the past papers to be easier then this. Except the multis i found these multis easier but section 2 harder then previous years; i think the mean for the state will be low, and therefore scaled raw marks up significantly.

jesus i hope so!! i was doing past papers but this test threw me so much!

 

[I Study Hard]

It'd be awesome if general actually got some good scaling this year.

 

[Macdwg]

28) b, II. This graph was incredibly misleading, it didn't start at 0 on the x axis so i had to extrapolate the line and found it had a negative y intercept. No one in my entire grade realised this. Pretty funny.

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

Yeah i also agree, i found all the past papers to be easier then this. Except the multis i found these multis easier but section 2 harder then previous years; i think the mean for the state will be low, and therefore scaled raw marks up significantly.

Yeah I actually agree. MC was good. But the section II was harder.

26 (c) i. $2200 x 12 x 20 = $528,000 Its a reducing balance loan, so the compound interest formula wouldn't have worked because it wouldn't have taken into account the repayments she was making, so the interest wouldn't have come out right. The total was the repayments she was making multiplied by 12 to get how much she paid in a year and then multiplied by 20 to get the full amount. (i'm pretty sure thats right)

I didn't get that. What about the interest? I seemed to get iii) though, cheers

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

28) b, II. This graph was incredibly misleading, it didn't start at 0 on the x axis so i had to extrapolate the line and found it had a negative y intercept. No one in my entire grade realised this. Pretty funny.

What does that matter, it asked to find the equation?

 

[Macdwg]

The equation can be given as y = mx+b because it was a straight line.

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

The equation can be given as y = mx+b because it was a straight line.

AH SHIT i just realised what you meant in the first one, my bad.

 

[Macdwg]

Did everyone else get that Q with the equation for a line? what did u get if so.

 

[I Study Hard]

What i meant about the interest is that if you tried to use the compound interest formula to see how much she ended up paying it wouldn't come up with the right answer because the compound interest formula keeps compounding the interest on the original amount 'P' where as it was a reducing balance loan, which meant that she made a repayment and then the interest for the next month was calculated as a percentage of the remaining balance. Does that make more sense? @Mac - I got Y = 1/13x + 1.2

 

[I Study Hard]

Sorry about my block like text guys. For some reason when i post it takes all the nice spaces i have between my lines and makes it all one paragraph and difficult to read.

 

[lolrofllol]

Did everyone else get that Q with the equation for a line? what did u get if so.

I got y = 0.232x + 1.2, I thought it was wrong too, but i realised the height of a child did not start at zero and hence x = the growth rate, not the acutal height. Incredibly hard exam, others pale in comparison. Same probability for 27c?

 

[Macdwg]

Did you even check to see if your equation worked? I got your answer originally however after plugging in values for x and realising it was WAY out i was able to work out how to solve it. Extrapolate line, measure amount. Then do gradient which i took from y= 7 down to y = -1.2, divide this by 65 which is from 0 to 65 on the extrapolation. Gradient = 0.1261. Y intersects at -1.2. Therefore y = 0.1261x - 1.2. Checked that equation and i was able to do y = 0.1261x(65) - 1.2. This gives 7. Looking at the graph 65 cm corresponds to 7 kg. Maybe im wrong but thats how i'm seeing it, can anyone else clarify this?. Also if u use y=0.232x(65)+1.2 = 16.28 kg. This cant be as 65 clearly corresponds to 7 kg.

 

[sir-study-alot]

i got 1 1/4 +1.2