2025 HSC Physics examination (2 Viewers)

[wizzkids]

2025 HSC Physics examination
Question 28
Regrettably the state's brightest Physics students have been disadvantaged (again!) by poor editing and proof reading by the examination committee.
Question 28 was highly ambiguous thanks to a poorly drawn diagram (I have edited the diagram below by showing a second icon for bicycle). The question forced students to play the silly game of, "guess the answer in the the head of the examiner". The icon of the bicycle was placed some distance from the start of the ramp, which will probably lead 50% of the students in the state to include the additional kinetic energy required to reach the top of the ramp (16 m/s plus an additional 6 m/s speed = 22 m/s). Whereas probably the examiner was intending the students should assume that only the projectile motion across the 16 m gap between the ramps needed to be calculated (in which case they will get a lower answer of 16 m/s). But who knows? The diagram is just appalling. The head examiner must accept that there are two correct answers, 16 m/s and 22 m/s because the diagram was so ambiguous.

 

[cheesynooby]

2025 HSC Physics examination
Question 28
Regrettably the state's bright Physics students have been disadvantaged (again!) by poor editing and proof reading by the examination committee.
Question 28 was highly ambiguous thanks to a poorly drawn diagram (I have edited the diagram below by showing a second icon for bicycle). The question forced students to play the silly game of, "guess the answer in the the head of the examiner". The icon of the bicycle was placed some distance from the start of the ramp, which will probably lead 50% of the students in the state to include the additional kinetic energy required to reach the top of the ramp (16 m/s plus an additional 6 m/s speed = 22 m/s). Whereas probably the examiner was intending the students should assume that only the projectile motion across the 16 m gap between the ramps needed to be calculated (in which case they will get a lower answer of 16 m/s). But who knows? The diagram is just appalling. The head examiner must accept that there are two correct answers, 16 m/s and 22 m/s because the diagram was so ambiguous.
View attachment 50643

they will likely just award both answers as long as it was specified "speed at top of first ramp" or "speed before first ramp"

 

[C2H6O]

oh sht how did this not cross my mind
lowkey makes sense that 22 was the expected answer cause otherwise what was the point of giving ramp directions?
are we sure it’s not a subtlety that they wanted b6 students to pick up on? are they definitely not allowed to reject 16?

 

[coolcat6778]

bruh why are all these losers worried about not taking height into account , you literally can't take height into account, unless the wheels aren't fucking rotating (basically sliding like ice). It's not physically accurate, since you do not know the wheel's radius and moment of inertia and other bs.

 

[coolcat6778]

oh sht how did this not cross my mind
lowkey makes sense that 22 was the expected answer cause otherwise what was the point of giving ramp directions?
are we sure it’s not a subtlety that they wanted b6 students to pick up on? are they definitely not allowed to reject 16?

It was testing your physical intuition (seeing if you could understand ramp angle is the same as angle of projection)

 

[coolcat6778]

This is one of the many pitfalls of the HSC Physics syllabus, we expect a rolling object will follow mgh = 1/2mv^2, even though it definitely wont.

There's a proportion of rotational kinetic energy required if the wheels roll (they should).

Beside that, the wording in this question is pretty obvious.

Clearly a cyclist can still pedal on the hill, nothing was indicating the cyclist would stop pedaling (so you clearly can't use conservation of energy as ENERGY is actively being added to the system, not just cause it isn't physically accurate)

Thus 16 or an answer around 16 is the ONLY correct answer. Points should be deducted for misinterpreting the question and considering energy, as it shows a lack of understanding in the usage of the conservation of mechanical energy (only applicable when total energy doesn't change, which isn't the case of a pedaling cyclist) and that you're willing to brain dump and not comprehend the question.

Not once did I think this question was ambiguous. It's pretty obvious they are referring to the speed at the end of the ramp. This question is probably gonna be like the 2024 projectile motion problem, a mean mark of fucking 30%. even though this question is legit a surface level physics problem, and problems of this nature are done from grade 10 in many other countries.

I feel like the HSC needs to add something that caps your maximum total mark if you score wrong in such a basic physics question like the SAT, like it actually pisses me off someone can be a braindead moron and not know how to answer such a surface level problem and still get a band 6, especially in the 2025 year (legit 19 marks of essays and low quality textbook recall theory questions)

 

[C2H6O]

It was testing your physical intuition (seeing if you could understand ramp angle is the same as angle of projection)

They could just give the angle and not the height

 

[coolcat6778]

They could just give the angle and not the height

they had to indicate they were the same height, if they used a variable like "h" all the people who can't do maths would skip the question just cause they can't do basic algebra since they gonna assume it's going to be a simultaneous equation or some shit they are gonna have to solve

 

[Average Boreduser]

This is one of the many pitfalls of the HSC Physics syllabus, we expect a rolling object will follow mgh = 1/2mv^2, even though it definitely wont.

There's a proportion of rotational kinetic energy required if the wheels roll (they should).

Beside that, the wording in this question is pretty obvious.

Clearly a cyclist can still pedal on the hill, nothing was indicating the cyclist would stop pedaling (so you clearly can't use conservation of energy as ENERGY is actively being added to the system, not just cause it isn't physically accurate)

Thus 16 or an answer around 16 is the ONLY correct answer. Points should be deducted for misinterpreting the question and considering energy, as it shows a lack of understanding in the usage of the conservation of mechanical energy (only applicable when total energy doesn't change, which isn't the case of a pedaling cyclist) and that you're willing to brain dump and not comprehend the question.

Not once did I think this question was ambiguous. It's pretty obvious they are referring to the speed at the end of the ramp. This question is probably gonna be like the 2024 projectile motion problem, a mean mark of fucking 30%. even though this question is legit a surface level physics problem, and problems of this nature are done from grade 10 in many other countries.

I feel like the HSC needs to add something that caps your maximum total mark if you score wrong in such a basic physics question like the SAT, like it actually pisses me off someone can be a braindead moron and not know how to answer such a surface level problem and still get a band 6, especially in the 2025 year (legit 19 marks of essays and low quality textbook recall theory questions)

whilst ik that the hsc make very little effort in making their exams. I want to ask, why exactly do you complain this much? I thought initially that it was ragebait but it seems you are genuinely this negative.... You don't even do this subject any more... Why do you care? You complaining on an education forum won't do anything.

 

[coolcat6778]

whilst ik that the hsc make very little effort in making their exams. I want to ask, why exactly do you complain this much? I thought initially that it was ragebait but it seems you are genuinely this negative.... You don't even do this subject any more... Why do you care? You complaining on an education forum won't do anything.

what about this is complaining about this HSC question please have a read at it again rather than skim through it

I said this question isn't bad.

I'm complaining that the entire state can't do fucking basic algebra - directly negatively impacting me (scaling for Engshit). these losers can only do good in english but are clearly retarded, possibly even medically and literally (can't get above 30/100 raw in 2 unit maths).

 

[ChatGPT]

2025 HSC Physics examination
Question 28
Regrettably the state's brightest Physics students have been disadvantaged (again!) by poor editing and proof reading by the examination committee.
Question 28 was highly ambiguous thanks to a poorly drawn diagram (I have edited the diagram below by showing a second icon for bicycle). The question forced students to play the silly game of, "guess the answer in the the head of the examiner". The icon of the bicycle was placed some distance from the start of the ramp, which will probably lead 50% of the students in the state to include the additional kinetic energy required to reach the top of the ramp (16 m/s plus an additional 6 m/s speed = 22 m/s). Whereas probably the examiner was intending the students should assume that only the projectile motion across the 16 m gap between the ramps needed to be calculated (in which case they will get a lower answer of 16 m/s). But who knows? The diagram is just appalling. The head examiner must accept that there are two correct answers, 16 m/s and 22 m/s because the diagram was so ambiguous.
View attachment 50643

Yes, the wording and diagram could definitely confuse students.

• It’s unclear whether the 16 m separation is measured between the tops or bases of the ramps.
• The question doesn’t clearly state that the launch and landing heights are the same (both 2 m high).
• The phrase “land on the second ramp” is vague — does it mean just reach the front edge, or land anywhere along its surface?
• The diagram being “not to scale” adds to the confusion, since students can’t infer distances visually.
• The orientation of the second ramp (facing toward or away from the rider) could also be misinterpreted.
• The question assumes students will treat it as a projectile motion problem with equal launch and landing heights, but this isn’t explicitly stated.
• A clearer version would specify that the 16 m is measured between the tops of the ramps, that both are 2 m high, and that the rider just reaches the second ramp.
• Despite being solvable with standard projectile equations, the current phrasing forces students to make assumptions that shouldn’t be necessary in a 4-mark question.

In short: the physics is fine, but the clarity is poor — the distances, angles, and landing condition need more explicit wording.

 

[coolcat6778]

but this isn’t explicitly stated

Nope, this question was worded perfectly fine

"minimum speed"