It was.. a pretty awful exam for me.... I didn't deal with the tricky questions well and some of them took me a while to get and others I kept trying to do and didn't get them in the end and had to skip :/ Since some questions took me a little longer to figure out/I kept trying different things to figure out, I even ended up running out of time and couldnt do the last binomial part and the majority of the final locus question (uh though I doubt I would've been able to do it). I wasn't sure if the question was simple and if I spent a little longer on it I would get the answer ._.
Considering how many times I got stumped during the exam I was pretty low on confidence by q14 too. The amount of marks I had to skip automatically puts me at ~80% or lower too (which was my aim...welp)
Probably the only things i could remotely feel alright about is that i got 10/10 on MC i think and i managed to get that weird y=tanx y=cosx perpendicular gradient question after only a short time of severe confusion lol
All in all it was a horrible experience for me haha..time to study for physics and chem now
Tbh the bulk of the paper's difficulty WAS in its trickiness. On a broad scale it wasn't that bad but some subtleties were meh. Also a bit of time management i guess; never spend too long on the same question.
It can be annoying though, being disappointed by the paper to the point that your motivation for Q14 drops a bit. Not much can be said there though unfortunately, that's for each and every person.
But yeah, definitely focus on the remaining exams now
Ok.... (post-test feeling: was horrible)
My thoughts on the test was... is it just me, or is the parametrics part of Q14 actually hard? (I mean, it is prelim work and I only managed part i) )
-I think I liked the MX2 test better because there was more time...
-I got the first two parts of the binomial q out, but when I tried adding the first two parts together... it just didn't work out...
-The second part to the circle geo was hard to see... (funny how I got the 4 mark circle geo in 4 unit and didn't see this one...)
-And I was just wondering if I'd get a mark taken off for writing in a domain restriction for Q11a) the inverse function... (the root sign bothered me in the test... should've just ignored it...[sigh])
Also, is it advisable to get E4 in MX1 and MX2 to consider doing uni maths? (like level 1141...)
A twist was there in the last part of the parametrics but I don't know about hard. Probably more peculiar than the norm but it only really required breaking it down. That being said that's important though; Q14 is usually about breaking things down and then building it all back up.
MX1 is shorter (and the paper's smaller) mainly because there just isn't that much stuff in the course to cover.
Yeah, that was not an add. That was a subtract. The trick with binomial was, like said, to eliminate the 2
n-1A generous marker won't care, but yeah that was a cube root.
The preference for MATH1141 is to have a combined mark of at least 175 between MX1 and MX2. Which is roughly E4 in both but there's a bit of breathing room if you barely miss it. But these are recommendations - it's ultimately your own skill that matters.
How much would around 75% raw scale for this test?
I don't expect it to be that much different to 2015, but maybe a tiny bit better.
See the raw marks database for the historical data but I only compare with a basis.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Suggested Answers to the HSC 2016 Maths Extension 1 Exam (+Discussion!) (Read 35059 times)