89 Replies to “Secret 2025 Specialist Business: Exam 2 Discussion”
I’ve not worked through it in detail, but a couple of questions raised an eyebrow:
Section A: 11. I wouldn’t say that in this particular instance the question is beyond the scope of the course, but asking about the domain for a solution to a DE is, as far as I know, novel.
Section B: 5a. Trivialised by CAS, but asking for the intersection of three planes makes me a little nervous for whether this might come up in Exam 1. Are students expected to know how to solve systems of 3 linear equations with three unknowns by hand? Study design is not clear.
MCQ 14, I was a fan of, you cannot just plug into a CAS and get a result spit out, but the most simple way to solve seemed to be using the cross prod formula that gets it a x b terms of sin(x), except it’s not on the formula sheet. The formula for dot prod, but not cross is on it. Why only include for dot and not cross product? Why include a determinant and expanded determinant but not that?
It’s not like the sheet is full and they couldn’t possibly fit it in. Why do it the way they do it?
Checking the Cambridge textbook, it makes a half-page appearance, but why they only include the determinant of a 3×3 matrix on the formula sheet baffles me.
All students should know the result. The study design just says “vector (cross) product of two vectors in three dimensions, including the determinant form” and “scalar (dot) product of two vectors, deduction of dot product for the i,j,k vector system and its use to find scalar resolute and vector resolute”. Neither is explicit about the relation to the angle between vectors.
It is strange the formula sheet is missing the a b sin(θ) result though!
Who cares!? There should be no formula sheet for Exam 2!! (Ditto Methods). Students can bring in their own bound reference. Not to mention everything that can be stored in the RAM of a CAS. Why is a formula sheet still included for Exam 2?! It is a total anachronism.
John, this is nonsense, and stay on topic. It is not a question of whether the formula sheet is screwed (again), and it is not a question of what students might write in their bound reference (which they should not be permitted to have).
The question is, what is the curriculum? And, the answer is, no one fucking knows, because VCAA is too fucking stupid to have written a coherent curriculum.
@ John: Maybe….
– the formula sheet exists so that students can “raw dog” the exam. No bound reference.
– its for those kids who don’t prepare and just bring in an unwieldy textbook
– it exists so that when the CAS and bound reference go the way of the dodo, it can rise supreme again.
I don’t know. Either way, if you’re going to have a formula sheet – at least make it internally coherent. The whole vectors section is a bit gross. And the almost-half-angle formulas tacked onto the end of the circular function section are the only ones with a scaled instead of just . The SUVAT section is missing one of the 5 equations.
Nope – we can agree that the assessment/course structure is a poor one but students still need to be prepared as at this time there is no other choice.
I liked this question a lot but do wonder how many textbooks out there actually have the geometric definition of the cross product done properly (as would be needed for this question).
Agree with comments about MCQ11. I thought about this for way longer than should be required for 1 mark (but that is possibly a reflection on my need to fully understand a problem more than anything).
Too much of the extended response was CAS button-pushing for my liking. The effort to make a lot of the MCQs CAS-neutral was good to see, but this was all undone by Section B.
In other words, you wonder how many textbooks (and teachers) show how the cross product is defined …. The whole matrix thing is not a definition, it’s simply a useful heuristic for calculation purposes.
A reasonable student ought to have been able to do Q14 in their heads in about 5 seconds.
Agree. But I do wonder (actually, I don’t – I’ve seen some class notes from too many other teachers to know the textbook is held in way too high a regard).
How? Because teachers use textbooks and many use them as their primary source. Some use them as their only source (well, maybe textbooks plus exam papers).
On what basis? Appeal to authority, perhaps. The writers of textbooks, one would assume, know their stuff… yes, I know this has been the source of many a WiTCH.
No, that is ridiculous. Cambridge, to their credit, will discuss matters that are clearly not part of the curriculum, in order to flesh out a topic (an idea clearly foreign to VCAA).
The fact that Cambridge covers a concept or technique provides zero license to VCAA to presume the concept/technique in an exam.
Students will still find ways to shoot themselves in the foot. And I don’t think all students will have finished it. And never forget … The easier the exam, the more pedantic and gratuitous the marking scheme will be …
Both exams are too easy. Those 6 questions on Exam–2 are so predictable, they are the same every year. So boring.
In Q2 (c) Euler’s method, if you use dQ/dt=(300-Q)/150, or d(300-295e^(-t/150))/dt, you would have different answer of Q(30), they are 61.05 and 61.19 respectively. Is VCAA going to accept both?
Such a boring exam. Apart from a few MCQ it was just straight up textbook questions; question 2 and question 6 (section b) were especially plain.
Kind of a waste of time doing all of those practise exams, i guess.
You’re correct – the ‘rms average’ could be negative. If they asked for the speed or restricted to positive velocities it would be fine.
It was still a nice question – I have seen it before somewhere – not sure if in a past paper or textbook. It will trip over a lot of students – even though a bit of thought can eliminate all other options.
I’m not happy with my working for this question – is there an elegant way of getting the result? (I basically used two ∫adx or v²=u²-2as equations to get there)
I used substitution with u=0,v=1 in the exam, but v^2=u^2+2as, rearranging to get a, and then plugging into w^2=u^2+2a(s/2) works fine and rather quickly. I think it was a really nice problem, and also a good step forward in preventing the excessive CAS bash that’s been happening recently I guess (although maybe there is some random UDF out there for this…), but it could easily have been fixed if they just said u,v>=0….
The pair of energy conservation equations you used is the same as what I did. I just didn’t shift to a frame of reference and units with u=0 and v=1!
And yes, it was a non-standard VCE question. There is no way that a UDF existed for it!
You dropped the final factor of two – but yes, that’s basically what I did.
You can represent this as the areas of trapezia in the v-t graph if you want to make it less algebra heavy for physics students!
MCQ 2 was nice. It picked up a common issue raised on this blog about points of inflection not being equivalent to where the second derivative vanishes. Glad I had that discussion with my students (telling them that usually VCAA doesn’t care and to not do the extra work in the exam to check!)
The thing is VCAA does care. There have been years in which questions asking for point of inflection (in E1) have been 5% solve rates because barely anyone tested second derivative sign change.
(I think the answer is obvious, but I think justifying that answer is far less obvious.)
2) I wonder how the error slipped through (see point 3). Any way one does it, you’re gonna take a square root, and you’d think the writers and vetters would naturally have the on their radar. Plus, the question smells wrong, in the same way as this SM question from long ago: velocity is a signed thing and the correct rooty answer is not.
3) Probably the simplest fix (not counting point 4) is to ask for the speed of the particle, but the velocity-to-speed switch is inelegant and muddies the question. I wonder if such considerations were part of the screw-up.
4) People seem to regard it as an intrinsically good question, but I’m not sure I agree, or at least not as an MCQ. Note that the question can be gamed, in the clever manner indicated and used by twk. Are MCQs that one can game by choosing specific values ok questions? (Yeah, this is nitpicking: the question in spirit is clearly much better than the historical norm.)
I think the question would be much better as a straight question, asking for the velocity (or speed) of the particle.
5) As for solving the question, I like Simon’s trapezium idea. The cleanest algebraic approach, capturing the symmetry, is perhaps let be the velocity at the midpoint, let be the displacement of the midpoint, then consider getting to the midpoint from either direction. That gives
(There are two ways to think about getting the second equation.)
Brining together a few ideas here… are SUVAT equations part of the curriculum any more?
If not (and I honestly do not know – I teach them anyway, just in case, but thought that they were taken out a few SDs ago) then the question is nasty and unfair.
If the SUVAT equations are not on the formula sheet, and they were in the past, is it fair to assume they are not in the curriculum any longer?
(Similarly for mean of a continuous random variable… that formula is not on the SM formula sheet but was assessed in Paper 1)
The formula sheet is clearly not a reliable guide to what (VCAA regards as) the curriculum. Why it is not, why VCAA doesn’t fix the damn thing, God only knows. Maybe because they’re all idiots.
SUVAT clearly is part of the curriculum, because VCAA keeps asking it. Again why, I don’t know. MCQ12, which started all this, is intrinsically good. But plenty of SUVAT VCAA has asked seems babyish and pointless.
Yes, SUVAT is definitely on the curriculum (it’s in the Kinematics section under the designation of ‘constant acceleration formulas’).
Whether VCAA invalidates the question or not is going to be hard to tell, I think; the intended answer (D) can easily be obtained by eliminating A,B,C (which are all obviously wrong, A is at the ‘time midpoint’, and if you assume u=v to do a sanity check, B and C give 2u and u^2 respectively, which are clearly not plausible), but the question is still invalid on the basis of a technicality. It’s unfortunate that VCAA didn’t perhaps think of replacing ‘the velocity of the particle at the midpoint’ with ‘the speed of the particle at the midpoint’ or just placing the restriction that u,v>=0.
It’s not so clear as that. Constant Acceleration is on the formula sheet, but not in the study design. The only mention of acceleration in the SD is: “application of differentiation, anti-differentiation and solution of differential equations to rectilinear motion of a single particle, including the different derivative forms for acceleration a = …. ”
Although, looking at this I just noticed in the over-stuffed year 11 course, they snuck in forces and statics!
“application of vectors to displacement, velocity, resultant velocity, relative velocity, statics and motion under a constant force.”
There is no way this question gets invalidated. Their psychometric analysis will show no need…
I like your u=v sanity check – basically checking the average really is an average.
Although, it’s not needed for C as that is just dimensionally wrong.
Section A:
Question 1 – really? this is how we’re assessing knowledge of contraposition?
Question 4 – dumb pseudocode.
Question 13 – lacking direction on “negligible air resistance”. Poor oversight by the VCAA.
Section B:
Question 3: part a) it’s not clear to me how much reference the VCAA wants to concentration.
Question 4 – The path of the particle is, at least, something unusual from the VCAA. Part d has long expansion underneath a square root which might cause some issues. Entire question is trivialised by CAS.
Question 6 – The VCAA has managed to make the stats-crap even more bland than usual. I am not sure if this is good, bad, or just ugly… 10 marks with each part being 1 mark of dumb CAS bashing.
Overall this exam seems to lean on (even) more CAS bashing than usual. The exam is also woefully easy.
Could someone simplify the wording :
by considering concentration , “explain whether the quantity of salt in the tank increases with time”
(for 1 m in 2 lines)?
All experienced teachers, how do you answer such a question?
“Increasing with time” may be too complex to phrase in two lines, so I am curious to know what exp teachers propose. Best before the exam reports are published : )
I could try to explain that the amount is increasing initially. In two lines.
I actually like questions asking for expkanation. Phrasing a sensible answer is a skill. But I suspect this question is not clear enough .
Likely confusing students.
As I mentioned, I can spend two lines explaining that initially the amount will be increasing.
What is required to earn the (sole) mark for this question?
There is a question about the limiting amount further down.
I think the structure/sequence could be better.
Also, some language subtlety, “explaim whether…”, is it saying that the amount IS increasing? Mildly suggesting it is increasing?
Thanks, Banacek. I’m still confused as to whether you’re objecting to the wording of the question or to the intrinsic question (whatever it is precisely asking).
I’ll look at it, but I suspect it is intrinsically a bad question.
Yeah, I’ve looked at 3(a) now. It’s a bad question, twice. I’ll update the posts …
Without looking at the question, my interpretation of “increases with time” was for *all* time. Which is true, but which requires having the DE in hand, which they don’t get until 3(b), and then it still requires understanding and/or intuition for DEs beyond SM.
So, it seems that the question must be asking only for the quantity increasing initially. In which case, the wording is atrocious.
Secondly, the flip between “concentration” and “quantity” is clumsy and, to be done easily, must require recognising that the volume of water is constant. Will they expect that to be pointed out?
Section B Question 3 (c) is absurdly worded:
Q has been defined as the amount of salt in the tank after t minutes in part (b) and is implicitly exact. It is absurd in part (c) to say that Q(30) is the approximate amount of salt after 30 minutes.
Why would you not just say “Using …. 15 minutes,” “find the approximate quantity of salt …” Classic VCAA verbosity that consistently shoots itself in the foot.
The examination reports have been uploaded (must have happened some time between midday yesterday and this morning). But it looks like the work experience kid did the 2025 Specialist Exam 2 Report – it’s titled 2025 but is actually the 2024 report (my first clue was the header). Same old VCAA ….
2025 title slapped onto the 2024 Report. The ‘responsible’ person for signing off on it has obviously not even bothered to check it. No familiarity with the exam is required, the headers on each page say 2024 …!! It is as blatant an example of incompetence as you will ever come across.
I’ve not worked through it in detail, but a couple of questions raised an eyebrow:
Section A: 11. I wouldn’t say that in this particular instance the question is beyond the scope of the course, but asking about the domain for a solution to a DE is, as far as I know, novel.
Section B: 5a. Trivialised by CAS, but asking for the intersection of three planes makes me a little nervous for whether this might come up in Exam 1. Are students expected to know how to solve systems of 3 linear equations with three unknowns by hand? Study design is not clear.
Yes, MCQ11 also made me pause. Kind of OK (although “maximal” or “implied” would be appropriate), but not exactly kosher.
Re 5a, what can one say except CAS poisons everything.
MCQ 14, I was a fan of, you cannot just plug into a CAS and get a result spit out, but the most simple way to solve seemed to be using the cross prod formula that gets it a x b terms of sin(x), except it’s not on the formula sheet. The formula for dot prod, but not cross is on it. Why only include for dot and not cross product? Why include a determinant and expanded determinant but not that?
It’s not like the sheet is full and they couldn’t possibly fit it in. Why do it the way they do it?
Oh, geez. So the cross product (by whatever method) is on the curriculum but
is not?
Checking the Cambridge textbook, it makes a half-page appearance, but why they only include the determinant of a 3×3 matrix on the formula sheet baffles me.
All students should know the result. The study design just says “vector (cross) product of two vectors in three dimensions, including the determinant form” and “scalar (dot) product of two vectors, deduction of dot product for the i,j,k vector system and its use to find scalar resolute and vector resolute”. Neither is explicit about the relation to the angle between vectors.
It is strange the formula sheet is missing the a b sin(θ) result though!
Nothing in that SD quote remotely indicates that students are expected to know the magnitude of the cross product.
No – I was just pointing out it’s vague wrt both dot and cross product – so teach the geometric interpretation and connection to angles for both?
Oh, sorry. Yes, I see.
Who cares!? There should be no formula sheet for Exam 2!! (Ditto Methods). Students can bring in their own bound reference. Not to mention everything that can be stored in the RAM of a CAS. Why is a formula sheet still included for Exam 2?! It is a total anachronism.
John, this is nonsense, and stay on topic. It is not a question of whether the formula sheet is screwed (again), and it is not a question of what students might write in their bound reference (which they should not be permitted to have).
The question is, what is the curriculum? And, the answer is, no one fucking knows, because VCAA is too fucking stupid to have written a coherent curriculum.
@ John: Maybe….
– the formula sheet exists so that students can “raw dog” the exam. No bound reference.
– its for those kids who don’t prepare and just bring in an unwieldy textbook
– it exists so that when the CAS and bound reference go the way of the dodo, it can rise supreme again.
I don’t know. Either way, if you’re going to have a formula sheet – at least make it internally coherent. The whole vectors section is a bit gross. And the almost-half-angle formulas tacked onto the end of the circular function section are the only ones with a scaled
instead of just 
. The SUVAT section is missing one of the 5 equations.
But it is Exam 2 , so all students should have any useful formulas not on the formula sheet in their reference.
You gotta be kidding.
Nope – we can agree that the assessment/course structure is a poor one but students still need to be prepared as at this time there is no other choice.
EM, that is ridiculous.
I liked this question a lot but do wonder how many textbooks out there actually have the geometric definition of the cross product done properly (as would be needed for this question).
Agree with comments about MCQ11. I thought about this for way longer than should be required for 1 mark (but that is possibly a reflection on my need to fully understand a problem more than anything).
Too much of the extended response was CAS button-pushing for my liking. The effort to make a lot of the MCQs CAS-neutral was good to see, but this was all undone by Section B.
Oh well… it could have been a lot worse I guess.
In other words, you wonder how many textbooks (and teachers) show how the cross product is defined …. The whole matrix thing is not a definition, it’s simply a useful heuristic for calculation purposes.
A reasonable student ought to have been able to do Q14 in their heads in about 5 seconds.
Agree. But I do wonder (actually, I don’t – I’ve seen some class notes from too many other teachers to know the textbook is held in way too high a regard).
How? On the basis of what reasonably presumed knowledge or technique?
How? Because teachers use textbooks and many use them as their primary source. Some use them as their only source (well, maybe textbooks plus exam papers).
On what basis? Appeal to authority, perhaps. The writers of textbooks, one would assume, know their stuff… yes, I know this has been the source of many a WiTCH.
No, that is ridiculous. Cambridge, to their credit, will discuss matters that are clearly not part of the curriculum, in order to flesh out a topic (an idea clearly foreign to VCAA).
The fact that Cambridge covers a concept or technique provides zero license to VCAA to presume the concept/technique in an exam.
Cambridge (p212), Nelson (p22), and Jacaranda (p187) all have |a x b|=|a||b|sin(theta).
Doesn’t matter.
I agree, just adding some context to RF’s question.
OK, sure.
For volume of solid of revolution this year they said “region bound” is revolved instead of graph is revolved around the axis.
Rejoice
Yes. It took six hammers at it, but they finally learned.
General consensus for this exam was that it was too easy (students are saying easiest in past 10 years).
Section B seems to have no “creative” or original questions that required thinking.
There would appear to be a theme.
Students will still find ways to shoot themselves in the foot. And I don’t think all students will have finished it. And never forget … The easier the exam, the more pedantic and gratuitous the marking scheme will be …
Yes, but the ERQ 2e – “give your answer in the from cπ+d for real c, d” was the same old open door for mischief.
Oh, geez.
Yes, the
sort of invalidates all that… would be funny if it weren’t tragic.
Both exams are too easy. Those 6 questions on Exam–2 are so predictable, they are the same every year. So boring.
In Q2 (c) Euler’s method, if you use dQ/dt=(300-Q)/150, or d(300-295e^(-t/150))/dt, you would have different answer of Q(30), they are 61.05 and 61.19 respectively. Is VCAA going to accept both?
I cannot see any argument for accepting the second answer.
Such a boring exam. Apart from a few MCQ it was just straight up textbook questions; question 2 and question 6 (section b) were especially plain.
Kind of a waste of time doing all of those practise exams, i guess.
MCQ 12 is wrong I think. (u,v)=(-1,-1) is a simple counterexample…
You’re correct – the ‘rms average’ could be negative. If they asked for the speed or restricted to positive velocities it would be fine.
It was still a nice question – I have seen it before somewhere – not sure if in a past paper or textbook. It will trip over a lot of students – even though a bit of thought can eliminate all other options.
I’m not happy with my working for this question – is there an elegant way of getting the result? (I basically used two ∫adx or v²=u²-2as equations to get there)
I used substitution with u=0,v=1 in the exam, but v^2=u^2+2as, rearranging to get a, and then plugging into w^2=u^2+2a(s/2) works fine and rather quickly. I think it was a really nice problem, and also a good step forward in preventing the excessive CAS bash that’s been happening recently I guess (although maybe there is some random UDF out there for this…), but it could easily have been fixed if they just said u,v>=0….
The pair of energy conservation equations you used is the same as what I did. I just didn’t shift to a frame of reference and units with u=0 and v=1!
And yes, it was a non-standard VCE question. There is no way that a UDF existed for it!
Let x denote the velocity we are trying to find
v^2-u^2=2as
x^2-u^2=v^2-x^2=as
2x^2=u^2+v^2
x=+-sqrt((u^2+v^2)/2) – VCAA just incorrectly took the positive solution
This method uses SUVAT that should be familiar to students
You dropped the final factor of two – but yes, that’s basically what I did.
You can represent this as the areas of trapezia in the v-t graph if you want to make it less algebra heavy for physics students!
Thanks, fixed
I like the trapezium idea.
similar question is on Cambridge textbook.
Whoops. Deleted my comment. Got my questions mixed up. Thanks, W.
W, I cannot see the question in Cambridge. Can you indicate the subchapter and exercise number?
In year 11 Textbook, chapter 23 C, Q12, please see the file attched.
kinematics question -YR 11 textbook–2025
Thanks very much, W. I see that version (reasonably interpreted) avoids the
issue.
I concur
Whoops. Thanks, very much, twk.
I have some thoughts/questions, but will post as a fresh comment.
MCQ 2 was nice. It picked up a common issue raised on this blog about points of inflection not being equivalent to where the second derivative vanishes. Glad I had that discussion with my students (telling them that usually VCAA doesn’t care and to not do the extra work in the exam to check!)
The thing is VCAA does care. There have been years in which questions asking for point of inflection (in E1) have been 5% solve rates because barely anyone tested second derivative sign change.
Yes, that was very interesting and pleasing to see. Perhaps, a bit easy as asked.
Just a couple questions and comments on MCQ12.
1) Should the question be invalidated?
(I think the answer is obvious, but I think justifying that answer is far less obvious.)
2) I wonder how the error slipped through (see point 3). Any way one does it, you’re gonna take a square root, and you’d think the writers and vetters would naturally have the
on their radar. Plus, the question smells wrong, in the same way as this SM question from long ago: velocity is a signed thing and the correct rooty answer is not.
3) Probably the simplest fix (not counting point 4) is to ask for the speed of the particle, but the velocity-to-speed switch is inelegant and muddies the question. I wonder if such considerations were part of the screw-up.
4) People seem to regard it as an intrinsically good question, but I’m not sure I agree, or at least not as an MCQ. Note that the question can be gamed, in the clever manner indicated and used by twk. Are MCQs that one can game by choosing specific values ok questions? (Yeah, this is nitpicking: the question in spirit is clearly much better than the historical norm.)
I think the question would be much better as a straight question, asking for the velocity (or speed) of the particle.
5) As for solving the question, I like Simon’s trapezium idea. The cleanest algebraic approach, capturing the symmetry, is perhaps let
be the velocity at the midpoint, let 
be the displacement of the midpoint, then consider getting to the midpoint from either direction. That gives
(There are two ways to think about getting the second equation.)
Brining together a few ideas here… are SUVAT equations part of the curriculum any more?
If not (and I honestly do not know – I teach them anyway, just in case, but thought that they were taken out a few SDs ago) then the question is nasty and unfair.
If the SUVAT equations are not on the formula sheet, and they were in the past, is it fair to assume they are not in the curriculum any longer?
(Similarly for mean of a continuous random variable… that formula is not on the SM formula sheet but was assessed in Paper 1)
The formula sheet is clearly not a reliable guide to what (VCAA regards as) the curriculum. Why it is not, why VCAA doesn’t fix the damn thing, God only knows. Maybe because they’re all idiots.
SUVAT clearly is part of the curriculum, because VCAA keeps asking it. Again why, I don’t know. MCQ12, which started all this, is intrinsically good. But plenty of SUVAT VCAA has asked seems babyish and pointless.
Yes, SUVAT is definitely on the curriculum (it’s in the Kinematics section under the designation of ‘constant acceleration formulas’).
Whether VCAA invalidates the question or not is going to be hard to tell, I think; the intended answer (D) can easily be obtained by eliminating A,B,C (which are all obviously wrong, A is at the ‘time midpoint’, and if you assume u=v to do a sanity check, B and C give 2u and u^2 respectively, which are clearly not plausible), but the question is still invalid on the basis of a technicality. It’s unfortunate that VCAA didn’t perhaps think of replacing ‘the velocity of the particle at the midpoint’ with ‘the speed of the particle at the midpoint’ or just placing the restriction that u,v>=0.
It’s not so clear as that. Constant Acceleration is on the formula sheet, but not in the study design. The only mention of acceleration in the SD is: “application of differentiation, anti-differentiation and solution of differential equations to rectilinear motion of a single particle, including the different derivative forms for acceleration a = …. ”
Although, looking at this I just noticed in the over-stuffed year 11 course, they snuck in forces and statics!
“application of vectors to displacement, velocity, resultant velocity, relative velocity, statics and motion under a constant force.”
There is no way this question gets invalidated. Their psychometric analysis will show no need…
Of course the question will not be invalidated. I was was asking whether the question *should* be invalidated.
I like your u=v sanity check – basically checking the average really is an average.
Although, it’s not needed for C as that is just dimensionally wrong.
Section A:
Question 1 – really? this is how we’re assessing knowledge of contraposition?
Question 4 – dumb pseudocode.
Question 13 – lacking direction on “negligible air resistance”. Poor oversight by the VCAA.
Section B:
Question 3: part a) it’s not clear to me how much reference the VCAA wants to concentration.
Question 4 – The path of the particle is, at least, something unusual from the VCAA. Part d has long expansion underneath a square root which might cause some issues. Entire question is trivialised by CAS.
Question 6 – The VCAA has managed to make the stats-crap even more bland than usual. I am not sure if this is good, bad, or just ugly… 10 marks with each part being 1 mark of dumb CAS bashing.
Overall this exam seems to lean on (even) more CAS bashing than usual. The exam is also woefully easy.
Thanks, Wilba. Re MCQ1, at least it is not wrong. That is progress of sorts.
Could someone simplify the wording :
by considering concentration , “explain whether the quantity of salt in the tank increases with time”
(for 1 m in 2 lines)?
Hi, Banacek. It’s clunky handholding wording, but do you have some specific issue?
All experienced teachers, how do you answer such a question?
“Increasing with time” may be too complex to phrase in two lines, so I am curious to know what exp teachers propose. Best before the exam reports are published : )
I could try to explain that the amount is increasing initially. In two lines.
So, you’re not objecting to the wording but to the question? Your concern is that is not easy to argue that the concentration continues to increase?
I’m not suggesting your objection is a good or a bad one. I’m just trying to understand your objection.
I actually like questions asking for expkanation. Phrasing a sensible answer is a skill. But I suspect this question is not clear enough .
Likely confusing students.
As I mentioned, I can spend two lines explaining that initially the amount will be increasing.
What is required to earn the (sole) mark for this question?
There is a question about the limiting amount further down.
I think the structure/sequence could be better.
Also, some language subtlety, “explaim whether…”, is it saying that the amount IS increasing? Mildly suggesting it is increasing?
Thanks, Banacek. I’m still confused as to whether you’re objecting to the wording of the question or to the intrinsic question (whatever it is precisely asking).
I’ll look at it, but I suspect it is intrinsically a bad question.
Yeah, I’ve looked at 3(a) now. It’s a bad question, twice. I’ll update the posts …
Without looking at the question, my interpretation of “increases with time” was for *all* time. Which is true, but which requires having the DE in hand, which they don’t get until 3(b), and then it still requires understanding and/or intuition for DEs beyond SM.
So, it seems that the question must be asking only for the quantity increasing initially. In which case, the wording is atrocious.
Secondly, the flip between “concentration” and “quantity” is clumsy and, to be done easily, must require recognising that the volume of water is constant. Will they expect that to be pointed out?
Now methinks it was a filler, last minute 1 mark top up question to get the right total for the question (or the exam ).
So it came out so lousy.
Re. mcq11. Is not y(1)=3 against options C and D?
50% punt?
Um, yes. That’s kinda dumb.
Since no-one has mentioned it, I will.
Section B Question 3 (c) is absurdly worded:
Q has been defined as the amount of salt in the tank after t minutes in part (b) and is implicitly exact. It is absurd in part (c) to say that Q(30) is the approximate amount of salt after 30 minutes.
Why would you not just say “Using …. 15 minutes,” “find the approximate quantity of salt …” Classic VCAA verbosity that consistently shoots itself in the foot.
Thanks, John. Yes, wrong and bad wording.
Official copies of the exam are now online
https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/vce/examination-specifications-past-examinations-and-examination-reports/specialist-mathematics
VCAA is keeping to their new timeline for maths (not other subjects though, as far as I can see)
Ah. Thanks, Simon. I’ll update the post.
Marking schemes have been released by VCAA
Thanks, very much, TN. I’ll update the posts.
Further Mathematics in the UK
No videos.
You can take down my post if you like and this post as well.
Can’t be bothered. But I’ve said it about fifty times. Unless there’s a compelling reason for a video, I don’t want it.
The examination reports have been uploaded (must have happened some time between midday yesterday and this morning). But it looks like the work experience kid did the 2025 Specialist Exam 2 Report – it’s titled 2025 but is actually the 2024 report (my first clue was the header). Same old VCAA ….
Thanks, John. So SM2 is wrong?
2025 title slapped onto the 2024 Report. The ‘responsible’ person for signing off on it has obviously not even bothered to check it. No familiarity with the exam is required, the headers on each page say 2024 …!! It is as blatant an example of incompetence as you will ever come across.
OK, my bad. Correct document but incorrect headers. Not a hanging offence. Nothing to see here, just the usual lack of attention to detail.
OK, thanks, John. (Wasn’t a hanging offence even if it had been the wrong report.)