We’re not really ready to embark upon this post, but it seems best to get it underway ASAP, and have commenters begin making suggestions.
It seems worthwhile to have all the Mathematical Methods exam errors collected in one place: this is to be the place.*
Our plan is to update this post as commenters point out the exam errors, and so slowly (or quickly) we will compile a comprehensive list.
To be as clear as possible, by “error”, we mean a definite mistake, something more directly wrong than pointlessness or poor wording or stupid modelling. The mistake can be intrinsic to the question, or in the solution as indicated in the examination report; examples of the latter could include an insufficient or incomplete solution, or a solution that goes beyond the curriculum. Minor errors are still errors and will be listed.
With each error, we shall also indicate whether the error is (in our opinion) major or minor, and we’ll indicate whether the examination report acknowledges the error, updating as appropriate. Of course there will be judgment calls, and we’re the boss. But, we’ll happily argue the tosses in the comments.
Get to work!
Q3(h), Section B (added 06/10/20)- discussed here. This is the error that convinced us to start this blog. The question concerns a “probability density function”, but with integral unequal to 1. As a consequence, the requested “mean” (part (i)) and “median” (part (ii)) make no definite sense.
There are three natural approaches to defining the “median” for part (ii), leading to three different answers to the requested two decimal places. Initially, the examination report acknowledged the issue, while weasely avoiding direct admission of the fundamental screw-up; answers to the nearest integer were accepted. A subsequent amendment, made over two years later, made the report slightly more honest, although the term “screw-up” still does not appear.
As noted in the comment and update to this post, the “mean” in part (i) is most naturally defined in a manner different to that suggested in the examination report, leading to a different answer. The examination report still fails to acknowledge any issue with part (i).
Q4(c), Section B (added 25/09/20) The solution in the examination report sets up (but doesn’t use) the equation dy/dx = stuff = 0, instead of the correct d/dx(stuff) = 0.
Q5(b)(i) (added 24/09/20) The solution in the examination report gives the incorrect expression in the working, rather than the correct .
MCQ4 (added 21/09/20) – discussed here. The described function need not satisfy any of the suggested conditions, as discussed here. The underlying issue is the notion of “inflection point”, which was (and is) undefined in the syllabus material. The examination report ignores the issue.
Q4, Section 2 (added 23/09/20) The vertex of the parabola is incorrectly labelled (-1,0), instead of (0,-1). The error is not acknowledged in the examination report.
Q7(b) (added 23/09/20) The question asks students to “find p“, where is the probability that a biased coin comes up heads, and where it turns out that . The question is fatally ambiguous, since there is no definitive answer to whether is possible for a “biased coin”.
The examination report answer includes both values of , while also noting “The cancelling out of p was rarely supported; many students incorrectly [sic] assumed that p could not be 0.” The implication, but not the certainty, is that although 0 was intended as a correct answer, students who left out or excluded 0 could receive full marks IF they explicitly “supported” this exclusion.
This is an archetypal example of the examiners stuffing up, refusing to acknowledge their stuff up, and refusing to attempt any proper repair of their stuff up. Entirely unprofessional and utterly disgraceful.
MCQ12 (added 26/09/20) Same as in the 2014 Exam 2, above: the described function need not satisfy any of the suggested conditions, as discussed here.