Yeah, yeah, we should have done this one a week ago. Feel free to transcribe your comments from the Methods Exam 2 discussion post. You can also check out the discussion on stackexchange, courtesy of Stog the Stirrer.

# Tag: Mathematical Methods

## Secret 2021 Methods Business: Exam 2 Discussion

As for yesterday, we’ve been handballed a copy of the Methods 2 exam, and we haven’t looked at it yet.

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

### UPDATE (23/04/22)

Our comments on the exam report are now interlaced below, in green. here. Needless to say, the examiners didn’t confess to, much less apologise for, any of their screw-ups.

Continue reading “Secret 2021 Methods Business: Exam 2 Discussion”

## Secret 2021 Methods Business: Exam 1 Discussion

Methods Exam 1 was today. We’ve been handballed a copy of the exam but haven’t looked at it yet, and we’ve not yet heard any reactions. People are free to give their thoughts in the comments below, and we’ll update this post as the dust settles.

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

**UPDATE (22/04/22)**

OK, we’ve now been through the exam report. Since the exam was relatively benign, and too easy, the report doesn’t bring up a lot else. But there is Q9, on which the report is disgraceful. We hammer this below, in green. Continue reading “Secret 2021 Methods Business: Exam 1 Discussion”

## WitCH 73: Independent Thinking

Here is an old Methods one for a change, from the 2011 Exam 2. The examination report gives the answer as E and indicates that 15% of students selected this answer.

## Discussion of the 2021 NHT Methods Exams

This is our post for discussion of the 2021 NHT Mathematical Methods exams (here and here). See also the accompanying 2021 NHT Specialist exams post, here. See also the relevant Witches: here, here and here.

**UPDATE (08/10/21) **The exam reports have reappeared, as PDFs, here and here. The exam 2 report has important updates, and important non-updates; see the comments in blue, below.

**UPDATE (22/09/21) **The exam reports are now out, here and here (VCAA-Word-Stupid). We’ve added a couple comments below, in green.

## WitCH 66: Bad Pipe Dream

This our final WitCH from the 2021 NHT Methods Exam 2. It is, in its own way, a masterpiece. Continue reading “WitCH 66: Bad Pipe Dream”

## WitCH 65: Repeat Offender

The following is our second WitCH from the 2021 NHT Methods Exam 2.

## WitCH 64: Decreasing Intelligence

Just in case anybody got the wrong impression and hoped or feared we’d turned over a new leaf, we’ll be posting a number of WitCHes in the next few days. We’ve finally had a chance to look at the 2021 NHT exams (although the exam reports have still not appeared). As usual, the exams are clunky and eccentric, and we’ll be posting a brief question-by-question overview of the exams. But, first, some highlights. Continue reading “WitCH 64: Decreasing Intelligence”

## PoSWW 20: Unconventional Wisdom

This one comes courtesy of frequent commenter, John Friend. It is an example from Cambridge’s *Mathematical Methods 34*.

**UPDATE (19/08/21)**

It amazes me at times what does and does not concern some commenters. That’s not intended as a criticism. Well, it is, but it isn’t. And, it is. It’s complicated.

## MitPY 13: Trigonometry and Wolfram Alpha

This MitPY comes from frequent commenter, John Friend:

*Dear Colleagues,*

*I gave a CAS-FREE question to my Specialist students whose first part was to solve (exactly) the equation *. *I solved it two different ways and got two different answers that are equivalent. I’ve attached my calculations.*

*I checked my answers using Mathematica, which lead to my question: Mathematica gives a third different but equivalent answer **(scroll down to real solutions). How has Mathematica got this answer?*

*It may be that Mathematica ‘used’ my Method 2, got my tan answer and then for some arcane reason ‘manipulated’ this answer into the one it finally gives. If so, I can ascribe the answer to a Mathematica quirk. But it may be that Mathematica is using a method unclear to me that leads to its answer. If so, I’m curious.*

*Any thoughts are appreciated.*