This is the home for Further Mathematics **(24/11/23** – now called General Maths) exam errors. The guidelines are given on the Methods error post, and there is also a Specialist error post.

***********************

**2023 Exam 2 (Here, discussed here****)**

**Q7(c). **The question cannot be properly answered as written.

**Q7(d). **There are two solutions, one of which will reportedly not be accepted as correct.

**Q9(d).** An extra 1 appeared in the matrix. (**31/01/23**. The published exam has corrected the error but with no acknowledgment of the error. This is sleazy.)

**Q11. **A poorly written question, with (at least) two correct answers.

**Q14(d).** There is an extra “of” in the preamble. (**24/11/23**) As has been point outed in a comment, since this correction was announced at the beginning of the exam, it’s not kosher to list it here as an error.

**2023 Exam 1 (Here, discussed here****)**

**MCQ26** The expression “Q multiplied by P” is absolutely fatal in the context of matrices and, if there is a clear meaning to be had, the meaning is Q x P. The question, however, requires P x Q.

**2023 NHT Exam 2 (Exam here, report here (Word, idiots))**

**Q(3) (added 15/08/23) **– The stem plot is incorrectly drawn, which can muck up the calculation of the five-number summary, asked for in part (b).

**2022 Exam 2 (Exam here, report here (Word, idiots) – discussed here)**

**QA(3)(a)(i) (added 27/12/22) **– This is not an error yet, but it will be. The issue is whether “Day Number” (for eight consecutive days) is a “numerical variable”: based on their past idiocy, it is clear that VCAA will claim, falsely, that it is not. (**15/08/23 **– Yep, VCAA screwed up. The report notes, “[the answer] 6 was a common error by students who had chosen ‘day number’ as a numerical variable”.)

**2022 Exam 1 (Here, report here (Word, idiots) – discussed here)**

**QA(1) (added 26/12/22)** – A badly borderline question on the shape of a distribution. A really great way to start an exam.

**QA(21) (added 26/12/22)** – A badly ambiguous question on nominal interest rates. It is unclear whether negative rates and/or (more plausibly) periods greater than a year were to be considered.

**2022 NHT Exam 2 (Exam here, report here)**

**QA(2)(a) (added 27/12/22) **– The report indicates that “year” is regarded as a “categorical variable”. This is absurd.

**2021 Exam 2 (Exam here, report here (Word, idiots) – discussed here)**

**QA(1)(f) (added 24/11/21 – discussed here)** The question asks for a minimum value to be an outlier, which, by definition of an outlier, cannot exist. (**26/12/22 ** – The answer in the exam report is simply false.)

**QB(1)(2)(c) (added 24/11/21 – discussed here)** The indicated matrix *M*^{2} is not the square of the matrix *M* provided earlier in the question.

**2021 NHT, Exam 2 (Here, and report here)**

**QA(18) (added 02/11/22)** A bad question, hingeing on whether “Event”, listed as “1” or “2”, is a “nominal variable”. The report indicates that it is, which is probably best considered wrong. (Compare QA(2) on 2016 Exam 1, and the report.)

**2021 NHT, Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**QA(18) (added 02/11/22)** Madness. A multiple choice question on compound interest, for which none of the available answers is correct (or even close). The examination report indicates no answer, simply noting

*As a result of psychometric analysis, the question was invalidated.*

Some psychometric analysis is probably in order, but VCAA appears to be pointing their psych gun at the wrong target.

**2019, Exam 2 (Here, and report here)**

**QA(1)(a) (added 27/12/22)** The question asks which of the two variables in a table is “ordinal”. The report indicates that “day number” (for fifteen consecutive days) is ordinal. Given the other choice was “temperature”, there wasn’t much alternative, But the better answer, and only properly correct answer, is “neither”. The exam report notes “A small number of students answered ‘neither’ “, without indicating whether this answer was deemed correct.

**2019, Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**QB(6) (added 21/09/20)** The solution requires that a Markov process is involved, although this is not stated, either in the question or in the report.

**2018 NHT, Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**MCQ4 (added 23/09/20)** The question provides a histogram for a continuous distribution (bird beak sizes), and asks for the “closest” of five listed values to the interquartile range. As the examination report almost acknowledges (presumably in time for the grading), this cannot be determined from the histogram; three of the listed values may be closest, depending upon the precise distribution. The report suggests one of these values as the “best” estimate, but does not rely upon this suggestion. See the comments below.

**2017 Exam 2 (Here, and report here)**

**Q1(c)(ii) (added 13/11/20) – discussed here****.** The question is fundamentally nonsense, since there are infinitely many 1 x 3 matrices L that will solve the equation. As well, the 3 x 1 matrix given in the question does not represent the total value of the three products as indicated in Q(c)(i). The examination does not acknowledge either error, but does add irony to the error by whining about students incorrectly answering with a 3 x 1 matrix. **(30/10/22) **The examination report has finally been amended to acknowledge the obvious error, albeit in a snarky “no harm, no foul” manner. The fundamental nonsense of the question remains unacknowledged. As commenter DB has noted, the examination report also makes the hilarious claim,

*The overwhelming majority [of students] answered the question in the manner intended without a problem.*

We’re not sure the “minority” of 72% of students who scored 0/1 on the question would agree.

**2017 Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**MCQ11 (added 13/11/20) – discussed here.** None of the available answers is correct, since seasonal indices can be negative. The examination report does not acknowledge the error.

**MCQ6 Module 2 (added 05/09/22) – discussed here.** The intention of the question is reasonably clear, but the expression “how many different ways” is, at minimum, clumsily ambiguous, and one can argue for either C or D or E being correct. The intended answer was E, but many also students answered C or D. The examination report suggests that the incorrect answers were due to “simple counting errors”, which is possible but far from definite. The report also writes “Most students answered option B, C or D”, which is contradicted by the statistics; presumably the statistics are correct and the sentence is wrong, but it is unclear.

**2015 Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**MCQ9 Module 2 (added 30/09/20)** The question refers to cutting a wedge of cheese to make a “similar” wedge of cheese, but the new wedge is not (mathematically) similar. The exam report states that the word “similar” was intended “in its everyday sense” but noted the confusion, albeit in a weasely, “who woulda thought?” manner. A second answer was marked correct, although only after a fight over the issue. **14/12/23**. The similarity argument in the report refers to d – 8, rather than 8 – d.

**2011 Exam 1 (Here, and report here)**

**MCQ3 (added 23/11/22).** The question asks for the “closest” value for the median, but this cannot be determined from the provided histogram; two of the provided answers (B and C) may be correct. The examination report is silent on the issue.