Search results

for that sort of Q, i.e. "Analyse the benefits of a sustained period of low inflation on Australia’s economic performance (5 marks)" you can definitely get 5/5 for this question without stats. besides, chucking a stat in might be irrelevant or might not slot nicely in, and then that may...

I'd actually say 15 mins on the safe side.

lol I'm laughing hard at you guys. let's get back on topic, before the mods ban seventh again as a scapegoat for our derailing.... :D

oh dear.

Just some feedback: The bolded part is too big and too general an assumption. You can never outright say low inflation = sustained EG Also, the italicised part is a bit jumbled and incoherent. Furthermore, you need to fully explain how and why Australia's CAD is improved. Properly draw...

+1

great job! :D thanks man :) pssh who said you have "limited problem solving ability"? :)

same :)

okay i'll give it a go. then why the hell do they say using assumptions for x=x and x=x+1 :/

come on people! :D we can do this :)

nah do up to 2001. and in the pre-2010 ones, if there is a question where you have never encountered that concept or term, then its probs from the old syllabus and just leave that question. in fact, trying working backwards from most recent to least. it will mean you encounter more questions...

huh? care to share? well using the solutions provided, is it possible to devise a way of doing the question where you assume true for n=k and n=k+1 and then prove true for n=k+2 because that's the way I've been taught for complicated 4u induction qs.

ruse solutions use two assumptions. but even still their solutions are an absolute mess and I ceebs posting it because they don't use the assume true for n=k and n=k+1 to then prove true for n=k+2. they do some weird way where they use assumptions for x=x and x=x+1 :/ its just chaotic. argh...

agreed. actually it might have been 2010. op a simple google search will yield an answer to the year it changed. but it wasn't massive changes. just an update.

in part one, they asked to prove true for n=1 and n=2. so I took that as strong proof/indication/hint that they want us to prove for n=k+2

I tried exactly that, but it didn't work. like legit exactly that :O

oh good, you being stuck makes me feel better. at least I know I'm not being stupid and not able to get out a easy-ish question....

bumpity bump :)

Re: ~FREE~ Prelim+HSC Mathematics Extension 1 Notes!!!! 99.95 // James Ruse haha yes but I do agree. you give out so much great advice, yet your rep level doesn't seem to be increasing. i.e. people aren't showing their appreciation so there's nothing wrong with it. just the way you phrased it...

so I am doing this q and I have done all parts except the last one. I have proven true for n=1 and n=2, by using i) and then assumed true for n=k and n=k+1 and now trying to prove true for n=k+2 and i tried using the assumptions and the provided result, but it is going nowhere...