Maths Extension 2 Predictions/Thoughts (1 Viewer)

[dumNerd]

wdym. did nesa just recycle questions??

no not the exact same question but the exact same quesiton type. I nearly didn't pay attention to the parametric vector shit when kurt was showing this kinda q cos he said it was unlikely to come lol

 

[dumNerd]

no not the exact same question but the exact same quesiton type. I nearly didn't pay attention to the parametric vector shit when kurt was showing this kinda q cos he said it was unlikely to come lol

on this note actually seeing how good kurt and du is you should buy their resources!

 

[=)(=]

were u unable to prove the x>ln(x) and the roots of unity? That's tuff.

wait for that did we need to consider 0<x<1

 

[Allan Mekisic]

Just found Question 16 (a). In mastering HSC maths by jonathon Lee!!!!!!

 

[Allan Mekisic]

The proof question in 16b was similar to a trial question a couple of years ago. Required same technique. NESA not very original.

 

[scaryshark09]

also question 15ai has been used before

 

[dumNerd]

also question 15ai has been used before

bruv every single q in the paper has been used before in some context except maybe the last part of the last question - if you were super sweaty for 4u it's actually possible to get a very very high raw score in this paper

 

[dumNerd]

The proof question in 16b was similar to a trial question a couple of years ago. Required same technique. NESA not very original.

that's actually a past hsc question

 

[SB257426]

70 raw will get you 92-93 which is 99.95 territory. You did well.

what about 62-64?

 

[carrotsss]

what about 62-64?

I’d say that’s probably a high band e3 in this paper which is the equivalent of a ≈99.5 ATAR (depends a lot on how high though because the marks tend to fall off hard in the band 5 range)

 

[Trebla]

Just found Question 16 (a). In mastering HSC maths by jonathon Lee!!!!!!

lol look up any question (trial, textbook, internet) related to equilateral triangles and complex numbers and you’ll find similar questions. It’s a pretty well known result. (PS: some version even appeared in past BoS trials).

The proof question in 16b was similar to a trial question a couple of years ago. Required same technique. NESA not very original.

I don’t think we should expect “originality” when it comes to Maths questions. Most questions you see are connected to some well known result. Otherwise, you rule out being asked to prove some famous/elegant results in maths. I actually think NESA is doing a pretty decent job in putting out questions that are unpredictable and not the same stuff everyone has seen before (which they used to do in the 2010s).

 

[dumNerd]

lol look up any question (trial, textbook, internet) related to equilateral triangles and complex numbers and you’ll find similar questions. It’s a pretty well known result. (PS: some version even appeared in past BoS trials).

I don’t think we should expect “originality” when it comes to Maths questions. Most questions you see are connected to some well known result. Otherwise, you rule out being asked to prove some famous/elegant results in maths. I actually think NESA is doing a pretty decent job in putting out questions that are unpredictable and not the same stuff everyone has seen before (which they used to do in the 2010s).

i mean the 2022 and 2021 paper had unique questions, you probably can't find the harder questions in the past HSC papers or tutoring questions, they should atleast make the originality consistent

I mean of course they are connected to some well known results. But if you have seen the same type of question before you KNOW what result to apply, the difficulty with original 4u questions is the fact that you should have to think about how to approach the question (try various different approaches/results) rather than knowing it straight away.

 

[SB257426]

I’d say that’s probably a high band 5 in this paper which is the equivalent of a ≈99.5 ATAR (depends a lot on how high though because the marks tend to fall off hard in the band 5 range)

ok thats not bad .... aggh i made some silly mistakes in my mc and i feel so devastated...

 

[SB257426]

ok thats not bad .... aggh i made some silly mistakes in my mc and i feel so devastated...

i literally feel like its the end of the world lol... worked so hard for a year (i set a goal when i started this course that i would get e4) its gonna hurt so much when i get my marks back and see an e3 cuz i made some stupid mistakes

 

[Sam14113]

I’d say that’s probably a high band 5 in this paper which is the equivalent of a ≈99.5 ATAR (depends a lot on how high though because the marks tend to fall off hard in the band 5 range)

@carrotsss or anyone else do you have any idea how harshly they mark the papers? I think I did alright (a bit worse than I’d hoped but fine) but there’s lots of marks they could’ve taken off if they feel like it (eg. Not proving the orientation of the vertices was correct for the parallelogram, using cover up rule for partial fractions) and some places I don’t know if I’d get partial credit (quite commonly in Q14 and 15). Just wondering because I feel like that literally could make a 10 mark difference in raw marks. Thank you

 

[tywebb]

mok's solution and fizzysoda's solution differ for Q10.

I agree with fizzysoda's answer B, not mok's C.

Both mok's solution and fizzysoda's solution give enough reasons for why it can't be A or D and fizzysoda gave a reason why it can't be C.

So by elimination it must be B. I know it's not like HSC MC questions to have a case of "none correct" or something like that, but here is a more constructive way to show why B is correct.

So rather than look for counterexamples one looks for an example. It's not an easy thing to do, but it can be done. I don't recommend it for the time it takes, fizzysoda's solution is more efficient. But suppose we find an example of A,B,C satisfying the conditions and lying on a sphere centred at the origin.



















This more constructive example shows why it would be incorrect to say that there do not exist A,B,C satisfying the conditions and lying on a sphere with centre the origin.

 

[carrotsss]

@carrotsss or anyone else do you have any idea how harshly they mark the papers? I think I did alright (a bit worse than I’d hoped but fine) but there’s lots of marks they could’ve taken off if they feel like it (eg. Not proving the orientation of the vertices was correct for the parallelogram, using cover up rule for partial fractions) and some places I don’t know if I’d get partial credit (quite commonly in Q14 and 15). Just wondering because I feel like that literally could make a 10 mark difference in raw marks. Thank you

I don’t have a perfect answer but what I will say is my mx2 teacher has marked the hsc (mx1 not mx2) and when I asked her to mark a paper at around the harshness she would in the hsc, it got me the same mark that I got when marking it myself, so it’s not like they mark it insanely harshly or anything like that. I’d say you’d get a decent amount of marks in most of those circumstances, so your raw mark would probably be on the higher end of your estimate

 

[eternallyboreduser]

TikTok - Make Your Day

vt.tiktok.com

 

[Trebla]

i mean the 2022 and 2021 paper had unique questions, you probably can't find the harder questions in the past HSC papers or tutoring questions, they should atleast make the originality consistent

I mean of course they are connected to some well known results. But if you have seen the same type of question before you KNOW what result to apply, the difficulty with original 4u questions is the fact that you should have to think about how to approach the question (try various different approaches/results) rather than knowing it straight away.

I think you have a different interpretation of “original” to mine. Like, with your interpretation I could argue the reduction formula Q15a)ii) was “original” because that technique isn’t a standard thing you find in that context and it makes you think. But I doubt many people would call that question “original”.

If by “original” you really mean “unseen” then that is in the eye of the beholder as everyone has had different exposure levels to different types of questions. For example, someone who has never seen Cauchy Schwarz inequality or Taylor series expansion may think a question that covers it in the HSC is cool/unique but someone who has been exposed to that (e.g. through a private tutor) may think a question on that is boring/unoriginal.

Also, I doubt the exam writers would necessarily be expected to go out of their way to read every question lying around in obscure places, especially if they’re not easily/publicly available (e.g. a tutoring resource), just to make sure no one thought of the same idea they did.

 

[Sam14113]

I don’t have a perfect answer but what I will say is my mx2 teacher has marked the hsc (mx1 not mx2) and when I asked her to mark a paper at around the harshness she would in the hsc, it got me the same mark that I got when marking it myself, so it’s not like they mark it insanely harshly or anything like that. I’d say you’d get a decent amount of marks in most of those circumstances, so your raw mark would probably be on the higher end of your estimate

Awesome, thanks mate