Suggested Solutions Here [Exam 2]

[JackOfSpades]

because that one is under soooo much debate maybe they will just take the question out...

[Charbel]

where is the answer to Q1)cii)

c)i) Negative quasi-parabolic curve over [2,6] (somewhat skewed to the right), maximum turning point at (4.31,0.38)
(Best to draw a line along the x-axis to represent the '0 elsewhere')
ii) 0.1211

3)a) 191 minutes; t~3.19 hours = 191.67 days = 192 minutes after rounding, BUT at 192 minutes he is DEAD, therefore 191 minutes is correct

It specifically asks you to round to the nearest minute, therefore even if it was 191.5001 you'd round to 192, not 191.

It's like if they had asked you to round to the nearest integer of, say, rabbits, when you find there are 1.6 rabbits. Even though, normally, you'd round down, here you must round to 2.

The question asks for the "time...[he] has to find an antidote"

If you state 192 minutes, he doesn't HAVE that amount of time, he'll be dead by then.

Thus you round down to 191 minutes.

Yes, but to refer again to the rabbits example; even if you do not have 2 rabbits, you'd round to whatever they ask you.

Its a debate of semantics I suppose. Meh, not gonna bother continuing this then.

Yeah, I agree. I was furiously debating with myself whether to change it or not as the examiner came up the row to collect my paper

Yes, I was too. I ended up deciding on 191, because it takes the reality of the scenario into account. If the question had asked "Rounded to the nearest minute, how long until the concentration is 100" perhaps 192 would have been better, but it specifically asks how long he has to get the antidote before he dies. I hope VCAA see it our way.

They may accept both - depending on the way you structured your argument. They should allow some leeway given the ambiguity of the question stem...

'to the nearest minute' would imply that it has to be an integer value of minutes. He is dead by the end of that minute, so he doesnt have that minute to find an antidote. That phrase just stops people from putting decimal answers.

Yup, that was my answer.

Although in the 2002 paper exam 2 final question - an 'adventure park ride' first reaches 24 metres above ground level at 55.32 seconds, but in their solutions VCAA gave 55 seconds - even though 'logically' the ride hasn't reached 24 metres high yet.

But today's question was somewhat different, someone's life was at stake

It's Tasmania Jones; no matter what, he must survive until the 2009 Methods exams.

HAHAHAHAHA ! i did it last year! and i got a poor score, well not really... scaled 44ish... ANd when i saw him this year... I felt a slight sense of happiness that he had a near death experience.

[rustic_metal]

where is the answer to Q1)cii)

c)i) Negative quasi-parabolic curve over [2,6] (somewhat skewed to the right), maximum turning point at (4.31,0.38)
(Best to draw a line along the x-axis to represent the '0 elsewhere')
ii) 0.1211

3)a) 191 minutes; t~3.19 hours = 191.67 days = 192 minutes after rounding, BUT at 192 minutes he is DEAD, therefore 191 minutes is correct

It specifically asks you to round to the nearest minute, therefore even if it was 191.5001 you'd round to 192, not 191.

It's like if they had asked you to round to the nearest integer of, say, rabbits, when you find there are 1.6 rabbits. Even though, normally, you'd round down, here you must round to 2.

The question asks for the "time...[he] has to find an antidote"

If you state 192 minutes, he doesn't HAVE that amount of time, he'll be dead by then.

Thus you round down to 191 minutes.

Yes, but to refer again to the rabbits example; even if you do not have 2 rabbits, you'd round to whatever they ask you.

Its a debate of semantics I suppose. Meh, not gonna bother continuing this then.

Yeah, I agree. I was furiously debating with myself whether to change it or not as the examiner came up the row to collect my paper

Yes, I was too. I ended up deciding on 191, because it takes the reality of the scenario into account. If the question had asked "Rounded to the nearest minute, how long until the concentration is 100" perhaps 192 would have been better, but it specifically asks how long he has to get the antidote before he dies. I hope VCAA see it our way.

They may accept both - depending on the way you structured your argument. They should allow some leeway given the ambiguity of the question stem...

'to the nearest minute' would imply that it has to be an integer value of minutes. He is dead by the end of that minute, so he doesnt have that minute to find an antidote. That phrase just stops people from putting decimal answers.

Yup, that was my answer.

Although in the 2002 paper exam 2 final question - an 'adventure park ride' first reaches 24 metres above ground level at 55.32 seconds, but in their solutions VCAA gave 55 seconds - even though 'logically' the ride hasn't reached 24 metres high yet.

But today's question was somewhat different, someone's life was at stake

Did you adjust for a tall european passenger?

[Synesthetic]

where is the answer to Q1)cii)

c)i) Negative quasi-parabolic curve over [2,6] (somewhat skewed to the right), maximum turning point at (4.31,0.38)
(Best to draw a line along the x-axis to represent the '0 elsewhere')
ii) 0.1211

3)a) 191 minutes; t~3.19 hours = 191.67 days = 192 minutes after rounding, BUT at 192 minutes he is DEAD, therefore 191 minutes is correct

It specifically asks you to round to the nearest minute, therefore even if it was 191.5001 you'd round to 192, not 191.

It's like if they had asked you to round to the nearest integer of, say, rabbits, when you find there are 1.6 rabbits. Even though, normally, you'd round down, here you must round to 2.

The question asks for the "time...[he] has to find an antidote"

If you state 192 minutes, he doesn't HAVE that amount of time, he'll be dead by then.

Thus you round down to 191 minutes.

Yes, but to refer again to the rabbits example; even if you do not have 2 rabbits, you'd round to whatever they ask you.

Its a debate of semantics I suppose. Meh, not gonna bother continuing this then.

Yeah, I agree. I was furiously debating with myself whether to change it or not as the examiner came up the row to collect my paper

Yes, I was too. I ended up deciding on 191, because it takes the reality of the scenario into account. If the question had asked "Rounded to the nearest minute, how long until the concentration is 100" perhaps 192 would have been better, but it specifically asks how long he has to get the antidote before he dies. I hope VCAA see it our way.

They may accept both - depending on the way you structured your argument. They should allow some leeway given the ambiguity of the question stem...

'to the nearest minute' would imply that it has to be an integer value of minutes. He is dead by the end of that minute, so he doesnt have that minute to find an antidote. That phrase just stops people from putting decimal answers.

Yup, that was my answer.

Although in the 2002 paper exam 2 final question - an 'adventure park ride' first reaches 24 metres above ground level at 55.32 seconds, but in their solutions VCAA gave 55 seconds - even though 'logically' the ride hasn't reached 24 metres high yet.

But today's question was somewhat different, someone's life was at stake

Did you adjust for a tall european passenger?

Fair enough.