nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Pass Maths P1

highlydebased

Thought the paper was somewhat convoluted.

Good few bits and pieces that have not been up in a few years....

Opinions on it? Hopefully scraped enough marks to pass it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PARARORY

Maybe there are two magic answers and everyone can be a winner

If Only....

Saw my maths teacher n he said 7500 was what he got but he was in a rush to do it!

ceol18

my dad said he just heard on the radio that apparantly some of the c parts on the OL paper were of HL standard, and will be marked differently....or something? wouldn't quote him on that he's slightly deaf but it'd make sense?

Victoria.

Thought some of the part Cs were really difficult.
Usually get good grades in this. In the 80s in the mocks.
Struggled today under pressure and after geography.

Found Q3 Cii difficult
Struggled with complex numbers part C and only got it in last 3 mins.
Abandoned Q6 part C eventually
Speed and distance in diff was tricky enough, only got 1 part

brianw1

frser32 wrote: »

for 1c did anyone work backwards from the sum given, i kept subtracting the 5 percent, some of the c parts were quite hard

Yeah me too, worked out at 7500

Curlyhatescurls

frser32 wrote: »

for 1c did anyone work backwards from the sum given, i kept subtracting the 5 percent, some of the c parts were quite hard

I DID THAT TOO!!!!
Overall I think the paper was pretty good, I usually always do bad, but I was pretty happy. Some part c's were tricky but they always are

eoin_mulhern

yeah the part c's were very hard....

as much as i thaugh i knew first principles i couldnt work that out for the life of me it just coming up the same as if i differentiated for standard rules which it should....feel very on edge about this

PARARORY

my dad said he just heard on the radio that apparantly some of the c parts on the OL paper were of HL standard, and will be marked differently....or something? wouldn't quote him on that he's slightly deaf but it'd make sense?

it was just one teacher giving his opinion. he thought it was too hard ( specifically question 3 part c )

They wont decide if it will be marked easier until the marking conference later in the month!

Fete

PARARORY wrote: »

If Only.... Saw my maths teacher n he said 7500 was what he got but he was in a rush to do it!

This is excellent news!

fauxshow

Q1 was unusually tough, especially the (c) part, which threw me because it was my best question!

First principles coming up in Q7 was a surprise, it was tipped not to come up this year... Q5 was very straightforward, tricky (c) though, and Q6 (a) and (b)(i) were generous. I don't think I failed it, but I was hoping to do better so I wouldn't have to stress too much about Paper II which is my ''bad'' paper

0.M.GXX

cork*girl wrote: »

I got (-3, -17) but I got (3, 19) I knew my graph wouldnt be correct >:(

ya i got that 2.. graph was fairly dodge though.. did your min n max points work out?

toto14

was everyone that gutted about that? im not braggin or anything but i thought that was a fairly decent paper!

paul-2008

thought that was fine, i think the first principals was only 10 marks because you didnt have to lim h to 0 but i dunno. hopefully i got on fine anyway. maths is one of my weak subjects but i thought i did good!

PARARORY

for the first principles ,

thats the (x+h) thing isnt it?

When i did it it just came out -3. but but the h cancelled before i could make it equal to zero if that makes sense?

Anyone else get this or did i do something wrong?!

frser32

yah i felt i was a fairly ok paper..as the guy on radio said..it suited people who dropped down from higher...i have pity for the weak ordinary student though...

NufcNavan

Meh, Im not very good at maths but I didnt think it was THAT hard. Question 3c and 6c I didnt have a clue.

PARARORY

thought that was fine, i think the first principals was only 10 marks because you didnt have to lim h to 0 but i dunno

Yeh thats what i thought. I got worried that i missed something!

paul-2008

the answer was just 3, or -3. cant remember. but yeah the h canceled out before you had to put 0 in for it.

eoin_mulhern

paul-2008 wrote: »

thought that was fine, i think the first principals was only 10 marks because you didnt have to lim h to 0 but i dunno. hopefully i got on fine anyway. maths is one of my weak subjects but i thought i did good!

bingo-thats where i was going wrong i was putting the lim to 0 when it was already differentiated why didnt i see that

hokeypokey

wether the h is there or not ure supposed to do the lim-0

paul-2008

but sure you didnt need to? there was no h to lim to 0? you were left with 3, which is the answer if u just differentiated the original equation

PARARORY

but sure you didnt need to? there was no h to lim to 0? you were left with 3, which is the answer if u just differentiated the original equation

Yeh your right , i thought that it was always the same four steps! Han never seen it before without the limit h=0

Fete

PARARORY wrote: »

for the first principles ,

thats the (x+h) thing isnt it?

When i did it it just came out -3. but but the h cancelled before i could make it equal to zero if that makes sense?

Anyone else get this or did i do something wrong?!

That is exactly what I got and was also the right answer. It came out exactly like it would if you just quickly differentiated it and you didn't need to limit h to 0.

Victoria.

(ii) A sum of €P was invested at r % per annum compound interest. The interest for the first year was €220. The interest for the second year was €228·80. Calculate r and P.

Interest = 228.80 - 220 = 8.80

8.80/220 x 100 = 4 %

4 % = 220
100% = original amount 220/4 x 100 = 5500

That's what I did.

LaurYL

What a joke !! Not Happy if you fail paper 1 and get a c in paper 2 can you still pass ??

Batchkid

LaurYL wrote: »

What a joke !! Not Happy if you fail paper 1 and get a c in paper 2 can you still pass ??

If you apply common sense to your question you'll find that you can't tell at the moment seeing as you don't know how much you failed by.

But anyways. It's probably just me but I thought them graphs were strange.
I thought an x(cubed) function depicted a periodic curve or asymptotes? I really didn't get either, could someone tell me what the shape of the graphs were like please?

FridaysWell

cork*girl wrote: »

I got (-3, -17) but I got (3, 19) I knew my graph wouldnt be correct >:(

will I get 7 marks..

Sorry mine is supposed to say 19 not -19 so woo maybe we're both right hmm...

neiler987

emm dont know if im right or not bu do they nt give u the compound interest formula in the tables

think its F=P(1+i)n

thats wat i used for part c(i) anywayz ..am i right ?

brianw1

Victoria. wrote: »

(c) (i)What sum of money invested at 5% per annum compound interest will amount to €8682 in 3 years? Give your answer correct to the nearest euro.

8682 = 100%
8682/100 x 5 = 434.10
8682 - 434.1 = 8247.9
8247.9/100 x 5 =412.396
8247.9 - 412.40 = 7835.5
7835.5/100 x 5 = 391.76
7835.5 - 391.76 = 7444

not sure thats right, i think you were meant to divide 8682 by 105 and then multiply by 100 to get the principl at the beginning of the third year.

do that twice more and it works out at 7500

FridaysWell

brianw1 wrote: »

not sure thats right, i think you were meant to divide 8682 by 105 and then multiply by 100 to get the principl at the beginning of the third year.

do that twice more and it works out at 7500

Me thinks your right...

If you multiply out 7500 at 5% over three years you get the figure in the sum

neiler987

got that 1 wrong then