Methods Exam 1: Discussion!

[chuck981996]

Would I recieve consequential marks for correct integration and area (even though it's incorrect?)

Well, two marks must be for the setup and answer, which you obviously wouldn't get. So I think the 3rd mark must be for the integration, which you would get. So probably 1/3.

[Kaleidoscope]

This seems straightforward, but where are the two marks on the very first question allocated? I wrote just the answer - was any more working required? Thanks!

[T-Infinite]

Could someone confirm this for me please..!!! 

For question 5c... I did something completely different from the suggested solutions but somehow I got the same answer?

I assumed its symmetrical so I said the area enclosed is the same as the area under the curve from 0 to 3...... but yeh, somehow it gave me 27/4 as well.. which is the same as what everyone else got?

Will I get any mark at all?....I think what I did was wrong but somehow got the right answer? hahahahaha

[keltingmeith]

This seems straightforward, but where are the two marks on the very first question allocated? I wrote just the answer - was any more working required? Thanks!

Yes - you also should've shown some some indication of using the product rule.

[Orb]

Awesome only lost last mark haha, but isn't 1b +-1/2......its the derivative equation of a hyperbola and no restriction on range?

That's what I got. Can anyone clarify whether +-1/2 is accepted?

[BLACKCATT]

Can we lose marks for not simplifying?...

[chuck981996]

Could someone confirm this for me please..!!! 

For question 5c... I did something completely different from the suggested solutions but somehow I got the same answer?

I assumed its symmetrical so I said the area enclosed is the same as the area under the curve from 0 to 3...... but yeh, somehow it gave me 27/4 as well.. which is the same as what everyone else got?

Will I get any mark at all?....I think what I did was wrong but somehow got the right answer? hahahahaha

No you're 100% right! It is symmetrical! Nice solution, VCAA will froth over that - very elegant. (As long as you specified that it was symmetrical on the exam)

[GeniDoi]

Can we lose marks for not simplifying?...

Yes for numerical simplification, no for algebraic simplification.

[someone011]

It said the area bounded by y=4 and the graph and this is only between -1 and 2

From 2 to 3 the area has to also be bounded by x=3

So I think chuck is right

I agree.
Did anyone else do 4x4 - the integral between -1 and 3?

[keltingmeith]

That's what I got. Can anyone clarify whether +-1/2 is accepted?

I'd say no, because the question defines you to take the positive root in the initial function. Looking at the function, that slope has a positive gradient, so your answer should be positive.

[chuck981996]

This seems straightforward, but where are the two marks on the very first question allocated? I wrote just the answer - was any more working required? Thanks!

No it'll be fine. They're highly valued because they're easy: VCAA needs to try to get a 20/40 mean somehow hahaha

[BLACKCATT]

Yes for numerical simplification, no for algebraic simplification.

What............................

[yoyoball]

That's what I got. Can anyone clarify whether +-1/2 is accepted?

The original graph was just a square root graph so te derivative would only be half a hyperbola wouldnt it?

Worry not! U couldve done something way stupider. like me and change 5in2 to in25....
Also stuffed up the last one makrer and made e^0 equal 0 instead of 1. Gonna chop my self.

[chuck981996]

What............................

They like you to simplify fractions, surds and logs but not to factorise expressions or rationalise surds. So like 1/sqrt(2) is acceptable, 2/4 is not, sqrt(12) is not, x^2+x^3 is acceptable, -ln(1/2) is not, etc.

[T-Infinite]

No you're 100% right! It is symmetrical! Nice solution, VCAA will froth over that - very elegant. (As long as you specified that it was symmetrical on the exam)

REALLY? friends keep telling me it's not symmetrical so I've been stressing over it. I'm glad it's correct, and yeah I did state that it was symmetrical on the paper.