***2015 LC Maths Paper 2 - Ordinary Level - June 8th***

gummibear

DT1 wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. Feels like a lot of weight of my shoulders I feel stupid for not getting Q9bii correct though lol.

Focus on the ones you got right!! Its done now and in the bag. Move on and good luck with the rest.

skippy1977

gummibear wrote: »

Ok here is the link that proves the error in the paper. Open the syllabus and at the top of page 17 you will see that you can only be asked about arrangements at OL. Selections/Combinations are HL only. i am a maths teacher so you can trust me on this!
http://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/f6f2e822-2b0c-461e-bcd4-dfcde6decc0c/SCSEC25_Maths_syllabus_examination-2015_English.pdf



heres the link. Top of Page 17!
http://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/f6f2e822-2b0c-461e-bcd4-dfcde6decc0c/SCSEC25_Maths_syllabus_examination-2015_English.pdf


heres a snapshot of it

Agree with all the above. I have the Higher Level this year but gave a hand to a couple of pass students one of the days. There was a question on one of the past papers about selecting songs...and I also told them that combinations were not on the course for them and to concentrate on arrangements.

Scirpt

gummibear wrote: »

Q 1(B)(i) 531441
Q 1(C)THIS Q SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON PAPER! ITS HL material only. ANSwer is 6C3 which is 20.
Q 7(A)(i) Bottom triangle was an enlarged version of the upper triangle ABC. You had to find the centre of enlargement which is a single point above the given two triangles. draw a line from P through A. Draw a line from R through C and a line from Q through B. where the 3 lines cross is the answer.
Q8(B)(ii) The answer using 3.14 will be the correct version.
Q8(B)(iii) 5 cans = 125L so you need to buy 6 cans.
Q9(A)(i) continuous?!
Q9(B)(ii)Its 185-145= 40cm. The difference between the talest possible height and the shortest possible height.

Think there needs to be a big kick up over q1c cos its no longer on the course for OL. Every student is entitled to full marks for that part!



I am a maths teacher and it jumped out of the page at me when I saw it because i had made a point of telling my classs they didnt need to do it when we did past papers!
Here is a screenshot from the syllabus

For 8B iii I calculated it as how much the cost of the paint would be exactly... Since the other paint would be kept as stock for future use? Would this be considered correct?

Also why would you use 3.14 instead of pi, are they not both correct?

gummibear

Scirpt wrote: »

For 8B iii I calculated it as how much the cost of the paint would be exactly... Since the other paint would be kept as stock for future use? Would this be considered correct?

Also why would you use 3.14 instead of pi, are they not both correct?

Yes an argument for this answer will most likely be made at the marking conference and am sure that both would be acceptable

Scirpt

gummibear wrote: »

Yes an argument for this answer will most likely be made at the marking conference and am sure that both would be acceptable

Which one are you talking about? Both?

gummibear

Scirpt wrote: »

Which one are you talking about? Both?

yes the question is unclear so they will have to accept the correct answer which you calculated for the 129L or the answer for buying the 6 tins o fpaint because you cant actually buy 129L but have to buy 150L

As for Pi, 3.14 is an approximation while the Pi button is more accurate (hence the slight difference in answers) but both are acceptable as is 22/7 especially if no guideline is given in question as to which to use.

Scirpt

gummibear wrote: »

yes the question is unclear so they will have to accept the correct answer which you calculated for the 129L or the answer for buying the 6 tins o fpaint because you cant actually buy 129L but have to buy 150L

As for Pi, 3.14 is an approximation while the Pi button is more accurate (hence the slight difference in answers) but both are acceptable as is 22/7 especially if no guideline is given in question as to which to use.

What do you think will happen over the question that shouldn't be on the OL paper? Who can we complain to, if anyone?

gummibear

Scirpt wrote: »

What do you think will happen over the question that shouldn't be on the OL paper? Who can we complain to, if anyone?

You can email to the SEC. Try the examiners section. If you don't get a satisfactory response there is always the media. (they love that kind of thing.)

Scirpt

gummibear wrote: »

You can email to the SEC. Try the examiners section. If you don't get a satisfactory response there is always the media. (they love that kind of thing.)

Just emailed them there. Let's see what happens.

randylonghorn

gummibear wrote: »

You can email to the SEC. Try the examiners section. If you don't get a satisfactory response there is always the media. (they love that kind of thing.)

To be honest, I really doubt it needs the media.

In a week or two, 200 or 300 correctors, the vast majority of whom will be practising teachers with classes of their own (and a few retired teachers, etc.) will gather for a Marking Conference, and it will be the first thing on everyone's lips. I've actually known an ACE start a Marking Conference (for another subject) by saying : "Good morning, you're all very welcome, and YES, I know we need to discuss the issue with Q. 6, we'll get to that in a while, no need to keep telling me!!" (I'm paraphrasing, but not much)

If people want to email the SEC just to get it out of their system, fair enough, and it's never any harm that they're aware students are concerned about an issue, but I wouldn't be wasting time and energy with media when students should be concentrating on their remaining exams, rather than being caught up in a media frenzy.

Scirpt

Anyone post the solutions yet?

gummibear

randylonghorn wrote: »

To be honest, I really doubt it needs the media.

In a week or two, 200 or 300 correctors, the vast majority of whom will be practising teachers with classes of their own (and a few retired teachers, etc.) will gather for a Marking Conference, and it will be the first thing on everyone's lips. I've actually known an ACE start a Marking Conference (for another subject) by saying : "Good morning, you're all very welcome, and YES, I know we need to discuss the issue with Q. 6, we'll get to that in a while, no need to keep telling me!!" (I'm paraphrasing, but not much)

If people want to email the SEC just to get it out of their system, fair enough, and it's never any harm that they're aware students are concerned about an issue, but I wouldn't be wasting time and energy with media when students should be concentrating on their remaining exams, rather than being caught up in a media frenzy.

I know this... hence why I said "If you don't get a satisfactory response..." Its up to the SEC to acknowledge the error and assert that it will be dealt with at conference. Which I am pretty sure it will be.

Jamies15

Scirpt wrote: »

Anyone post the solutions yet?

<redacted>

No offence to Jamie, but the solutions linked have been shown to have multiple errors.

randylonghorn

gummibear wrote: »

I know this... hence why I said "If you don't get a satisfactory response..." Its up to the SEC to acknowledge the error and assert that it will be dealt with at conference. Which I am pretty sure it will be.

You may know it, gummibear, but students aren't necessarily as familiar with the whole process, and it's mostly stressed students who are reading this board.

From my experience of this Board over the last few years, all it takes for some is to read "if you don't get a satisfactory response there is always the media (they love that kind of thing)", and if they don't get a full and satisfactory response from the SEC *tomorrow*, they're off with the bit between their teeth!!

Which, I think we both agree, would be premature and unnecessary!

gummibear

randylonghorn wrote: »

You may know it, gummibear, but students aren't necessarily as familiar with the whole process, and it's mostly stressed students who are reading this board.

From my experience of this Board over the last few years, all it takes for some is to read "if you don't get a satisfactory response there is always the media (they love that kind of thing)", and if they don't get a full and satisfactory response from the SEC *tomorrow*, they're off with the bit between their teeth!!

Which, I think we both agree, would be premature and unnecessary!

Yes agreed.

JayIre

Isn't Q9 (A) Numerical continuous? Just looking at the suggested answers above.

gummibear

JayIre wrote: »

Isn't Q9 (A) Numerical continuous? Just looking at the suggested answers above.

yes numerical continuous

JayIre

gummibear wrote: »

yes numerical continuous

Cheers. Was getting worried there.

gummibear

JayIre wrote: »

Cheers. Was getting worried there.

No worries

KatieGhomie

Eazzah wrote: »

Horrible paper.

Thank you, everything I've been reading on this thread is everyone saying " so easy etc" and I am getting very worried then, as I need a C.Like I found paper one better than my paper two, I thought the first paper was fine (I hope) & most found it horrible whereas I found paper two worse.I don't get why they would decide to not give any choice q this year and put transformations of all things as the mandatory q instead,sorry for my little rant it just kinda upset me,seeing no choice q.I think the sec are getting sneakier as the years go on and making the paper much more difficult which is so unfair,we do ordinary for a reason not to be belittled further practically forcing some to do foundation which won't even get you into university...(apologize for my rant maths is my weakest subject and if I don't get a C after repeating just maths this year I will be so disappointed ).I want to wish u the best of luck anyway and hopefully that it went better than you think
Best of luck in the rest of your exams,it will all be over soon & you can enjoy life again ha ha :P

AHH I shouldn't have but I looked at suggested solutions and I am kinda upset now as I think I did very poorly in the paper maybe worse than before ahhhhhhhhhhh ( found paper one better though even though seems everyone found the opposite n loved paper two ) I am really worried I won't get a C as I found it very tough

randylonghorn

KatieGhomie wrote: »

AHH I shouldn't have but I looked at suggested solutions and I am kinda upset now as I think I did very poorly in the paper maybe worse than before ahhhhhhhhhhh ( found paper one better though even though seems everyone found the opposite n loved paper two ) I am really worried I won't get a C as I found it very tough

Katie, if they were the ones linked earlier in this thread (and which I have just deleted) they have been shown to have multiple errors, so don't go by them.

KatieGhomie

randylonghorn wrote: »

Katie, if they were the ones linked earlier in this thread (and which I have just deleted) they have been shown to have multiple errors, so don't go by them.

Ok thanks,tbh I'm not sure on a scale of one-10 ten being ****e how bad I did just kinda worried after repeating maths (just maths this year) I wont get a C

randylonghorn

KatieGhomie wrote: »

Ok thanks,tbh I'm not sure on a scale of one-10 ten being ****e how bad I did just kinda worried after repeating maths (just maths this year) I wont get a C

If you only have maths, it's over! There's only one thing to do now ... forget about it.

I know that's not easy to do, but here's the thing ... not one hour of worrying, not 1000 hours of worrying in fact, will change your grade even one little bit!

So you can put in the hours of worrying to no avail and give yourself an ulcer, or you can enjoy your summer.

KatieGhomie

randylonghorn wrote: »

If you only have maths, it's over! There's only one thing to do now ... forget about it.

I know that's not easy to do, but here's the thing ... not one hour of worrying, not 1000 hours of worrying in fact, will change your grade even one little bit!

So you can put in the hours of worrying to no avail and give yourself an ulcer, or you can enjoy your summer.

Thanks for your words of encouragement haa appreciate it. Yeah I am just hoping I did okay, and just try forget about it now haha.Thanks again.:) Best of luck in the rest of ur exams,I did the leaving cert last year so I know how horrible the whole thing is but it will all be over soon and If I passed maths last year anyone can(got a low D but need a C this year that's my reason for repeating)

randylonghorn

KatieGhomie wrote: »

Best of luck in the rest of ur exams,I did the leaving cert last year so I know how horrible the whole thing is ...

Yeah, I'll try to get through them!

Get out tomorrow and go cycling or hill-walking or something strenuous, it will help dissipate the stress!

B787RW

gummibear wrote: »

You can email to the SEC.

I emailed the SEC about Q1 c. and got this reply from the Chief Examiner:

''This question can be fully and satisfactorily answered using techniques that are on the Ordinary level syllabus. In particular, the expectation is that candidates will list out all of the possible patterns and then count them. This technique is part of the normal arsenal of techniques available to candidates at all three levels and is explicitly stated in section 1.1 of the Junior Certificate syllabus, which represents the assumed prior learning for the Leaving Certificate syllabus at the corresponding level, (“At Ordinary level and Higher level, knowledge of the content and learning outcomes at the corresponding level in the Junior Certificate Mathematics syllabus is assumed” – syllabus, page 11.) In this case, the listing will need to be handled carefully and systematically by the candidates and it is recognised that it is not a trivial task. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that it is at an appropriate level of challenge for the last part of a question at this level and entirely in line with both the letter and the spirit of the syllabus.

Of course, any candidates who are familiar with the additional content at Higher level do indeed have an alternative method that they could bring to bear in order to answer the question more efficiently. Needless to say, any who do so will not be penalised in any way.''

skippy1977

B787RW wrote: »

I emailed the SEC about Q1 c. and got this reply from the Chief Examiner:

''This question can be fully and satisfactorily answered using techniques that are on the Ordinary level syllabus. In particular, the expectation is that candidates will list out all of the possible patterns and then count them. This technique is part of the normal arsenal of techniques available to candidates at all three levels and is explicitly stated in section 1.1 of the Junior Certificate syllabus, which represents the assumed prior learning for the Leaving Certificate syllabus at the corresponding level, (“At Ordinary level and Higher level, knowledge of the content and learning outcomes at the corresponding level in the Junior Certificate Mathematics syllabus is assumed” – syllabus, page 11.) In this case, the listing will need to be handled carefully and systematically by the candidates and it is recognised that it is not a trivial task. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that it is at an appropriate level of challenge for the last part of a question at this level and entirely in line with both the letter and the spirit of the syllabus.

Of course, any candidates who are familiar with the additional content at Higher level do indeed have an alternative method that they could bring to bear in order to answer the question more efficiently. Needless to say, any who do so will not be penalised in any way.''

Sounds a little bit...

Now look, I don't feel too strongly about it either way...but getting a student to list 20 outcomes:

1st, 2nd, 3rd
1st, 2nd, 4th
1st, 2nd, 5th
1st, 2nd, 6th
2nd, 3rd, 4th....etc etc 20 times....

Is that really what they wanted?

Maybe and I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt but it's a bit like getting an Arithmetic Sequence 2, 5, 8,... and being asked for the 30th term....would they expect you to write them all out? Or do they want you to spot the pattern with a=2 and d=3 and apply the formula.

On reflection it's possible they did mean students to do this. I think last year's Higher Paper had a question where students just had to list outcomes...a large listing also (but not as many as here).
It would be a very easy part (c) if they had been mistaken and thought students could use combinations i.e. 6C3=20, so maybe they weren't?

Peregrine

I don't think it's unusual to ask them to list them all out. I remember doing a question at HL where the only method was to list out 20 odd possibilities.

You do have to spot that the larger your initial number is, the fewer the possibilities are. For example, it can't begin with 5 or 6 at all. If it begins with 4, it can only be 456. If it begins with 3, it can be 345, 346 and 356. And the possibilities increase as the initial number decreases.

It's a difficult question for OL to be honest but possible without combinations.

It'll be interesting to see how an OL student with no knowledge of combinations approached it.

Edit: I jumped the gun at the end. 146.

skippy1977

Nim wrote: »

I don't think it's unusual to ask them to write them all out. I remember doing a question at HL where the only method was to list out 20 odd possibilities.

You do have to spot that the larger your initial number is, the fewer the possibilities are. For example, it can't begin with 5 or 6 at all. If it begins with 4, it can only be 456. If it begins with 3, it can be 345, 346 and 356. And the possibilities increase as the initial number decreases.

It's a difficult question for OL to be honest but possible without combinations.

It'll be interesting to see how an OL student with no knowledge of combinations approached it.

Edit: i jumped the gun at the end. 146.

Yeah the more I think about it, the less I'm convinced it was an error.
The fact they drew the boxes helps a bit.

In a 2010 Project Maths OL question (when combinations were used) they asked how many different ways is there of selecting 3 songs from 7. That would be even more difficult to visualise.
1st Song, 2nd Song, 3rd Song
1st Song, 2nd Song, 4th Song...

Maybe they should put the combinations back in!!

jam17032010

skippy1977 wrote: »

Sounds a little bit...

Now look, I don't feel too strongly about it either way...but getting a student to list 20 outcomes:

1st, 2nd, 3rd
1st, 2nd, 4th
1st, 2nd, 5th
1st, 2nd, 6th
2nd, 3rd, 4th....etc etc 20 times....

Is that really what they wanted?

There isn't enough room for that on the paper unless you write really small.

The syllabus clearly states that higher level only is "selecting r objects from n objects". It doesn't mention anything about various methods being on/off. If "selecting" is HL only, then the converse is that it is not on OL. That SEC response is a fudge. Would be interesting to test it in a court.

Might be interesting for students to check the marks allocated when viewing scripts with a view to getting a re check.