When you’re ready.
The Marty is slow but the readers are patient.
Here are my thoughts on the multiple choice questions. In general, the MCQ seem OK, given the limitations of the subject, and are generally well written. As usual, commenters have covered the ground pretty well but there seem to be a couple things to add.
MCQ 3. The specification that the functions are continuous is there for no reason, and thus has no reason being there.
MCQ 6. The construction “The value of BLAH is …” is too clumsy. Better is, “Then BLAH equals …”.
MCQ 8. The condition n ≠ m is there for no reason, and thus has no reason being there.
MCQ 11. Similar to MCQ 9, but not quite as bad. It is still very bad, though. VCAA must stop it with the redundant “continuous and differentiable” bullshit:
A function that is differentiable is automatically continuous.
It is teaching Not Maths to be using the current phrasing.
Furthermore, the question didn’t have to indicate anything whatsoever about differentiability “for all “: the derivatives (and values) of the functions are specified at x = -2, and that is all that is required.
Finally, the “gradient of the graph …” framing, rather than simply “the derivative of …”, is needless, clumsy, wordy and muddying. (Afterthought: Is the graph thing why, for jumping at shadows reasons, the writers ventured into general differentiability?)
MCQ 13. It’s pseudocode crap. I don’t do pseudocode crap. But commenters indicate that it is slightly wonky.
MCQ 14. In practice just CAS crap, but the question can be easily figured out with zero working. CAS poisons everything.
MCQ 19. In practice just CAS crap, but the question can be easily figured out without computing the discriminant. CAS poisons everything.
MCQ 20. The question is overegged, and screwed. By VCAA’s rules (Word, idiots), a composition of functions is either defined or it is not: and are not.
Here are my thoughts on Part B. Not a whole lot to say beyond what commenters have noted. Perhaps it’s a little less weird than in previous years. As always, CAS poisons everything.
Q1. The wording in (d) is appalling, an absurd confusion of what is being defined, and how.
Q3. A repeatedly bad question. Limits as x goes to -∞ are not, or at least were not, kosher; there is no proper indication of the concept in the study design, it is new and it should have been flagged. Then, what is the point of having a CAS-fueled question about the derivatives of nx, which 99% of Methods students will have no clue how to calculate? Part (c) is very poorly worded. Part (h) is a weird, 2-mark Magrittism.
Q4. As Bryn has noted, (f) should be asking for the maximum permissible standard deviation. This is arguably covered by the question asking for the “required” standard deviation, but the wording, at best, is vague. Part (j) has the “m” for “meters” glitch. It’s hardly a hanging offence, but the sentence does scan awkwardly. Also, this is a recycled question from 2009. It’s not clear that that matters, but it seems very strange. Why would they do this?
Q5. As commenters (and reporters) have noted, (b) is a bad screw-up, with “domain” written when “maximal domain” was intended. We won’t know how big a screw-up, however, because we don’t know yet, and may never know, if VCAA will take responsibility for the error and give full marks for all correct answers. Like the assholes refused to do in 2022. The rest of the question is CAS garbage. An ugly and painful way to end.