yup i got around a 91 raw (one of my answers i cannot remember)did anyone get over 90%
yup i got around a 91 raw (one of my answers i cannot remember)did anyone get over 90%
probably ~80quite stressed
geez...yup i got around a 91 raw (one of my answers i cannot remember)
Yes, that's my impression, though it strikes me more as challenging than unreasonable.Do you think this exam was harder than last years?
girl how did u goso would we get scaled up orrrr
horrid - couldnt be worse! wbuuugirl how did u go
What do you think about this year's exam? (if you've gone through it)The probability you are looking for is P(Z>0.4). The table only gives you P(0 < Z < 0.4), so you're missing half the entire normal curve. This means you need to do a bit of manipulation first
P(Z > 0.4) = 1 - P(Z < 0.4) = 1 - [0.5 + P(0<Z<0.4)] ~ 0.5 - 0.1554 = 0.3446
The answer in the attachment is wrong. You cannot have more than half of the babies being above the average for a normal distribution.
equally horrible woooohorrid - couldnt be worse! wbuuu
Ahh, ok. At least there's scaling to compensate for thatYes, that's my impression, though it strikes me more as challenging than unreasonable.
Unlikely... The highest scaling before was the 2013 paper in which the band 6 cutoff was 75.wait but ive just checked the scaling report and in the past years its around like 77-80 minimum to get b6 so would that mean this year its like 65?
omg... i just checked the solutions i did not scrape a band 3 ... do i cry or kms orrrrr???equally horrible woooo
;((((( did u get less than 50omg... i just checked the solutions i did not scrape a band 3 ... do i cry or kms orrrrr???
i wish i didnt see the solutions im actually clinically depressed for a weak i cried enuf today - im gonna get disowned by myself