A small comment on methods from my experiences last year

So I think the general consensus this year is that the exam was difficult. I think in these cases, the examiners are a tiny bit more lenient when it comes to the minor stuff like simplifying answers or drawing graphs slightly awkwardly. I worked out that if the markers were being tough last year, I would have scored about 32-33/40 for exam 1, as I had small notation errors etc. But I emerged with an A+ so I must have scored at least 36 (probably dot on that, I utterly mucked up the last q).
My advice from this is to
not linger on the mistakes or successes of Exam 1. This will only be poisonous, and cloud your mind during Exam 2. Exam 2 is worth twice as much: there are 80 marks left to either redeem yourself or further prove your skills. Last year I thought I'd bombed (for what I was expecting) Exam 1, so I went into Exam 2 with extremely low expectations, thinking to myself that I couldn't do worse than Exam 1, I could only do better. This left me putting less pressure on myself, thus I had a clearer head to think through problems and not freak out, and managed to work my way through some of the trickier sections of the exam

Don't lose hope yet!