Oh alrite. Someone told me they got ~85 last year and that aligned to 95. I thought that 08 was pretty similar to 09.
If you've done questions before which were similar to the ones in the 09 exam. Then, you'd be sure that you've covered most of the criterion for the question.
last yrs paper was fukin easy, we got all the reject shit, all the questions had tricks in them, all worded to fuk over people, there was like 30 marks on calculations which was shit, that 7 marker on the bread one really pissed me off (if you dnt know the reaction of ammonia and hcl you are stopped from getting the other 5 marks which is bullshit) there was fuk all on production of materials, no advantages/disadvantages of ethanol, biomass, no radioisotopes, biopolyers, compare lead acid cell, natural indictors, no acid theory, dodgy vague titration graph question ("similar acid" suck my dick) no haber process, no water purification (one multi choice!!! shit as), no eutrophication, fukin one mark on "why should we monitor phosphorus" should have been 5 marks, that fukin callibration curve, spent forever fukin with that because it didnt have a small enough scale on it. There was no graphing in chem or physics, there was nothing on reliability, validity or accuracy. no impact of named ion on environemnt, no ozone, a fukin dodgy galvanic cell question, no practicals (except esterification) and a whole one mark on risk assessment. FUCK THAT
that whole test needed to be flipped on its head, everything worth one mark should have been 6, and everything worth 6 should have been 1.
i want to kill whoever made that!