Did anyone BEAST the further exam?

[abzzzz]

How did you guys go? list some silly mistakes you made throughout the paper.

I for one, almost fell into the trap for Core, i think q7, the regression line, luckily i saw the variables for list 1 and list 2

[thatisanote]

I 100'd it

[abzzzz]

I took so much time on the core, seeing as it's so easy, so a careless mistake was bound to occur. Left me with 5 minutes left for Matrices and had to guess the last 3 questions

[Deank]

95% ='(, dropped two marks on core, Q11 (some reason the -r made me go really in depth into thought and even made me ignore logic that kids who play video games are more likely going to be less fit, can anyone explain what is affected through having a negative r value, other than the fact that the gradient must be negative?) and Q12.

[Hodgeyhodgey]

According the suggested solutions here on the forums, I got 100%. STOKED

[Keki]

I got owned.. time really does make you see things unclearly!

[harlequinphoenix]

95% ='(, dropped two marks on core, Q11 (some reason the -r made me go really in depth into thought and even made me ignore logic that kids who play video games are more likely going to be less fit, can anyone explain what is affected through having a negative r value, other than the fact that the gradient must be negative?) and Q12.

negative just means as the independent variable (time spent playing games) INCREASES, the dependent variable (fitness level) DECREASES, so, conversely, less time playing games tends to make you fitter

[Deank]

95% ='(, dropped two marks on core, Q11 (some reason the -r made me go really in depth into thought and even made me ignore logic that kids who play video games are more likely going to be less fit, can anyone explain what is affected through having a negative r value, other than the fact that the gradient must be negative?) and Q12.

negative just means as the independent variable (time spent playing games) INCREASES, the dependent variable (fitness level) DECREASES, so, conversely, less time playing games tends to make you fitter

So a positive r value would imply that as the independant variable (tme spent playing games) INCREASES, the dependant variable (fitness level) INCREASES? That's where I messed up, kept thinking the negative r swapped it around some reason, I even went to the extend to apply the r value of -0.56 to the b=r(sy)/sx, and assuming that the standard deviation wouldn't be negative, somehow magically made it reverse, damn it, why didn't I go with logic.

Edit: Changed "independant variable (tme spent playing games) DECREASES to INCREASES."

[Natters]

100%
effing happyyyyy

[Deank]

When the question is worded like it was, e.g. "For a group of 15-year-old students who regularly played computer games, the correlation between the time spent playing computer games and fitness level was found to be ...", does that imply that the first variable (time spent playing computer games) is the independent variable (x) and that the second variable (fitness levels) is the dependant variable (y)?

[harlequinphoenix]

When the question is worded like it was, e.g. "For a group of 15-year-old students who regularly played computer games, the correlation between the time spent playing computer games and fitness level was found to be ...", does that imply that the first variable (time spent playing computer games) is the independent variable (x) and that the second variable (fitness levels) is the dependant variable (y)?

Yeah it does

[Furbob]

35/40 -

shaded in the wrong answer for a question I got right, misread a question, got a little confused with the %'s in Core and the median, deathtrap q12, the question about what combo cant be done for the envelopes in mod 3

would've liked 1 more mark for a 90%! ah well, not too bad?

[Natters]

When the question is worded like it was, e.g. "For a group of 15-year-old students who regularly played computer games, the correlation between the time spent playing computer games and fitness level was found to be ...", does that imply that the first variable (time spent playing computer games) is the independent variable (x) and that the second variable (fitness levels) is the dependant variable (y)?

it didnt actually occur to me which variable is independent in this, but common sense tells you that nerds are fat and non nerds are skinny
oh political correctness

[Deank]

When the question is worded like it was, e.g. "For a group of 15-year-old students who regularly played computer games, the correlation between the time spent playing computer games and fitness level was found to be ...", does that imply that the first variable (time spent playing computer games) is the independent variable (x) and that the second variable (fitness levels) is the dependant variable (y)?

it didnt actually occur to me which variable is independent in this, but common sense tells you that nerds are fat and non nerds are skinny
oh political correctness

Lol nice, yeah some reason I thought Math triumphed over logic, and was stuck on the idea of E, don't ask.. lol

[Natters]

yeah a couple of people have done that, dont get your hopes up but they may accept both if the question is deemed ambiguous