**HL Maths P2 Before/After

Saracarroll

SD021 wrote: »

I never claimed to be a genius, far from it actually. But I still strongly disagree with you. Mathematical Sciences in UCC is my first choice and has been all year. I do Applied Maths and Physics and yet I still loath this course. To be honest when I think of "True maths" directions of causality and such don't spring to mind.

I also do applied maths and I am also aiming for an A1. I found the paper quite doable so I don't think sweeping statements about it helping students aiming for a B or C is helping anyone. Some people are suited to this still will others are not, no matter their ability. So statements like that do not help people who maybe looking for a B or C and found it hard.

mathstalk

Hey, just like to say if anybody got 80 degrees for Beta, the reason was that you used the sine rule. You see, Sin80=Sin100. This is why the sine runs into problems for angles greater than 90 degrees (Wish I knew that before the exam). The examiner will probably notice this minute error though, because I suspect a good few used the sine rule.

leaveiton

Dapics wrote: »

Thats a very unfair statement.

The fact is that if you feel you wont get your A1 because of that paper then perhaps you dont deserve the A1/ are not a maths genius.
Its all good being able to recognise twists in questions and then subsequently act on them.

But This years course truly teaches true maths.
It teaches the logic behind certain parts of maths.
This is good. I would think any student who wants to do maths in college would greatly appreciate this course.

A grand neighbour of mine, one of the smartest men in the country, an absolute maths genius who programs software for I.T companies said it was a truly good paper in that he would have loved to be doing it.

Just my take on your statement, dont mean to come across two strong

It's all well and good saying that the course teaches true maths, but it doesn't if the teachers don't do it that way. I wish I'd had a better teacher who'd actually taught us how to understand concepts, but I didn't. Most of the examples from past papers did not require the same level of understanding as this year's trig question, so we weren't taught it. I'm not for a moment saying that you're wrong or trying to argue with you, but the course can only go so far, the teachers need to teach it properly. I think a lot of people were caught out by that question because they didn't have the understanding required for it. I couldn't understand it because we've never done anything like that before in class and I don't have a background in physics/DCG/applied maths that would have helped me out. I was never aiming for an A for the record, all I wanted out of this was a C, and I'll be lucky to get it at this stage. Sorry if this is a bit rambling, not really thinking straight about this exam still and I'm not sure what my point is exactly.

jackindebox94

hoping for an a1 and pretty good at maths so here are my answers. one was ok it was a parrallelogram q2 was fine q3 k=3. q4 again was fine q5 was a bit tougher. i got a huge increase 327% but that may be wrong and worth a look at. q6 was easy bissect 60 twice. q7. this is bull**** its not maths but was an easy enough question. q8 alpha =45 beta =100. bigger change was due to alpha moving by 1 degree and a donught shape for the final part of the question. any questions and ill do my best to answer them:)

Oween

jackindebox94 wrote: »

hoping for an a1 and pretty good at maths so here are my answers. one was ok it was a parrallelogram q2 was fine q3 k=3. q4 again was fine q5 was a bit tougher. i got a huge increase 327% but that may be wrong and worth a look at. q6 was easy bissect 60 twice. q7. this is bull**** its not maths but was an easy enough question. q8 alpha =45 beta =100. bigger change was due to alpha moving by 1 degree and a donught shape for the final part of the question. any questions and ill do my best to answer them:)

LOL say goodbye to your A1 so hahaha

jackindebox94

Oween wrote: »

jackindebox94 wrote: »

hoping for an a1 and pretty good at maths so here are my answers. one was ok it was a parrallelogram q2 was fine q3 k=3. q4 again was fine q5 was a bit tougher. i got a huge increase 327% but that may be wrong and worth a look at. q6 was easy bissect 60 twice. q7. this is bull**** its not maths but was an easy enough question. q8 alpha =45 beta =100. bigger change was due to alpha moving by 1 degree and a donught shape for the final part of the question. any questions and ill do my best to answer them:)

LOL say goodbye to your A1 so hahaha

why? what is wrong so genius?

Tankosaur

finality wrote: »

I'd say I got full marks in 3 questions, about 18-22/25 in two and about 12 in one. Then hopefully 75 in 7, and about 40 or so in 8...it was that bad. Which means I may scrape an A2 if I'm lucky, think I got about 90% in paper 1... it just all went wrong More likely is a B though. I'm actually so upset because there was nothing I didn't know how to do, the pressure just got to me.

Sorry to here that mate.

I'm hoping the problematic questions will be one everyone strugled with so the marks will be top heavy meaning you'll get a lot of method marks

Tankosaur

mathstalk wrote: »

Hey, just like to say if anybody got 80 degrees for Beta, the reason was that you used the sine rule. You see, Sin80=Sin100. This is why the sine runs into problems for angles greater than 90 degrees (Wish I knew that before the exam). The examiner will probably notice this minute error though, because I suspect a good few used the sine rule.

I used cos rulle but forgot about the minus infront of the cos so my value of beta was 80.3 instead of 99.7. I hope i'll just lose 3 marks for a slip and the rest of my working out was correct so I hope I'll only lose those 3 for that question.

Tankosaur

My answers for q 7 if people could help me calm my nerves by comparing/contrasting.

(a) (i) rate of interest increased due to the range of the graphs
(ii) the number of people in arrears increased
(iii) the correlation increased
(b) you need the total number of people with mortgages not the people in arrears
(c) the direction of causality is positive as the correlation is postitive
(D) was calculations so I can remember the values
(e) was I rejected the hypothesis so we can conclude that the number of people in arrears has changed.

DepoProvera

Tankosaur wrote: »

My answers for q 7 if people could help me calm my nerves by comparing/contrasting.

(a) (i) rate of interest increased due to the range of the graphs
(ii) the number of people in arrears increased
(iii) the correlation increased
(b) you need the total number of people with mortgages not the people in arrears
(c) the direction of causality is positive as the correlation is postitive
(D) was calculations so I can remember the values
(e) was I rejected the hypothesis so we can conclude that the number of people in arrears has changed.

All same as me, apart from b) I said you need to know how many people are represented by the dots/if they represent the same amount of people :S and my calculations were i) .31 ii) .08 iii).94ish

Tankosaur

DepoProvera wrote: »

All same as me, apart from b) I said you need to know how many people are represented by the dots/if they represent the same amount of people :S

The question phrased that you need to know the median mortgage rate of interest of people, but the value submitted was the number of people in arrears so the graph is irrelevant we just need the number of people with mortgages.

Tankosaur

DepoProvera wrote: »

All same as me, apart from b) I said you need to know how many people are represented by the dots/if they represent the same amount of people :S and my calculations were i) .31 ii) .08 iii).94ish

dem calculations..... I love you.

DepoProvera

Tankosaur wrote: »

The question phrased that you need to know the median mortgage rate of interest of people, but the value submitted was the number of people in arrears so the graph is irrelevant we just need the number of people with mortgages.

But the y axis is the % mortgage, no?

jackindebox94

DepoProvera wrote: »

Tankosaur wrote: »

My answers for q 7 if people could help me calm my nerves by comparing/contrasting.

(a) (i) rate of interest increased due to the range of the graphs
(ii) the number of people in arrears increased
(iii) the correlation increased
(b) you need the total number of people with mortgages not the people in arrears
(c) the direction of causality is positive as the correlation is postitive
(D) was calculations so I can remember the values
(e) was I rejected the hypothesis so we can conclude that the number of people in arrears has changed.

All same as me, apart from b) I said you need to know how many people are represented by the dots/if they represent the same amount of people :S and my calculations were i) .31 ii) .08 iii).94ish

ya same as myself but for i and ii. b i also had a different answer you need to know the interest rates that those who aren't in arrears are paying. and for part iii) i got 0.06. you needed to get the number of people who are in both arrears and negative equity and that number turned out to be 723 so answer =723/11644.

liamduffy1994

finality wrote: »

I'd say I got full marks in 3 questions, about 18-22/25 in two and about 12 in one. Then hopefully 75 in 7, and about 40 or so in 8...it was that bad. Which means I may scrape an A2 if I'm lucky, think I got about 90% in paper 1... it just all went wrong More likely is a B though. I'm actually so upset because there was nothing I didn't know how to do, the pressure just got to me.

I know how ya feel mate, only did an 88ish paper 1 needed 90 and Q8 and not reading questions fully in paper 2 will bring me down to the A2/B1 level I think

DepoProvera

Unless I'm completely missing the point here : "The charts are intended to
illustrate the connection, if any, between the percentage of mortgages that are in arrears and the
interest rates being charged for mortgages." Does this mean that the Y axis is interest rate paid by those in arrears? If so **** my life

Tankosaur

jackindebox94 wrote: »

ya same as myself but for i and ii. b i also had a different answer you need to know the interest rates that those who aren't in arrears are paying. and for part iii) i got 0.06. you needed to get the number of people who are in both arrears and negative equity and that number turned out to be 723 so answer =723/11644.

(iii) was the probability of a person being in positive equity and arrears at the same time.

To find it you subtracted the number of people in negative equity and the people in positive but not in arrears from the total.

then add this number to the total of people in neg equity and arrears.

Then divide the number of people in negative equity and arrears by this number.

Tankosaur

DepoProvera wrote: »

But the y axis is the % mortgage, no?

y axis was the interest rate.

x axis was the % people in arrears.

DepoProvera

jackindebox94 wrote: »

ya same as myself but for i and ii. b i also had a different answer you need to know the interest rates that those who aren't in arrears are paying. and for part iii) i got 0.06. you needed to get the number of people who are in both arrears and negative equity and that number turned out to be 723 so answer =723/11644.

No the amount who are in neither is 475 136 - 317 355.. Then you subtract that value from 145 414 which gives you total number in arrears.. Then put 11 644 over that number

Oween

jackindebox94 wrote: »

why? what is wrong so genius?

Beta was 80, k=4.something, your % error is way off which means you probably got the majority of that question wrong too, taking into account you probably didn't get full marks elsewhere also, adding all these lost marks up would lead to greater than 30 marks which is below an A1 in this paper, unlucky...

DepoProvera

Tankosaur wrote: »

y axis was the interest rate.

x axis was the % people in arrears.

Yeah Y was interest rate on mortgages..? Aghh I'm completely missing something aren't I? :P

Tankosaur

"Then put 11 644 over that number"


actually you add 11644 to it, then put 11644 over it.

jackindebox94

Tankosaur wrote: »

jackindebox94 wrote: »

ya same as myself but for i and ii. b i also had a different answer you need to know the interest rates that those who aren't in arrears are paying. and for part iii) i got 0.06. you needed to get the number of people who are in both arrears and negative equity and that number turned out to be 723 so answer =723/11644.

(iii) was the probability of a person being in positive equity and arrears at the same time.

To find it you subtracted the number of people in negative equity and the people in positive but not in arrears from the total.

then add this number to the total of people in neg equity and arrears.

Then divide the number of people in negative equity and arrears by this number.

if Im wrong Im really sorry but the question says if you pick from all those in arrears what is the probability that they will be both in arrears and negative equity but the thing is there are only 723 people who are in negative equity

jackindebox94

Tankosaur wrote: »

jackindebox94 wrote: »

ya same as myself but for i and ii. b i also had a different answer you need to know the interest rates that those who aren't in arrears are paying. and for part iii) i got 0.06. you needed to get the number of people who are in both arrears and negative equity and that number turned out to be 723 so answer =723/11644.

(iii) was the probability of a person being in positive equity and arrears at the same time.

To find it you subtracted the number of people in negative equity and the people in positive but not in arrears from the total.

then add this number to the total of people in neg equity and arrears.

Then divide the number of people in negative equity and arrears by this number.

if Im wrong Im really sorry but the question says if you pick from all those in arrears what is the probability that they will be both in arrears and negative equity but the thing is there are only 723 people who are in negative equity

DepoProvera

Tankosaur wrote: »

"Then put 11 644 over that number"


actually you add 11644 to it, then put 11644 over it.

hmmm I don't think so..? we want those in negative eq and arrears/total in arrears

DepoProvera

jackindebox94 wrote: »

if Im wrong Im really sorry but the question says if you pick from all those in arrears what is the probability that they will be both in arrears and negative equity but the thing is there are only 723 people who are in negative equity

"Of the 475 136 properties examined, 145 414 of them were in negative equity"

jackindebox94

Oween wrote: »

jackindebox94 wrote: »

why? what is wrong so genius?

Beta was 80, k=4.something, your % error is way off which means you probably got the majority of that question wrong too, taking into account you probably didn't get full marks elsewhere also, adding all these lost marks up would lead to greater than 30 marks which is below an A1 in this paper, unlucky...

if you are saying beta is 80 you left out a minus sign when working out the angle. apologies for having to tell you that. k=3 because 1,1 and k,k were on the circle with centre of (k+1)/2,(k+1)/2. look i guess we'll see when the marking scheme comes out.

DepoProvera

^^^ yeah the consensus is beta 100 alpha 54/55

Tankosaur

DepoProvera wrote: »

hmmm I don't think so..? we want those in negative eq and arrears/total in arrears

Nope, there were 3 values, 1 the total,2 the people not in arrears or negative equity,3 the people in negative ( and the people ( out of these) who are in negative equity.)


so take 2 and 3 from 1 to give you the people in arrears and postive equity.


add this to those in negative equity and arrears to get the total in arrears then divide the number in negative eq and arrears by this total.

answer came to about 47%

Oween

jackindebox94 wrote: »

if you are saying beta is 80 you left out a minus sign when working out the angle. apologies for having to tell you that. k=3 because 1,1 and k,k were on the circle with centre of (k+1)/2,(k+1)/2. look i guess we'll see when the marking scheme comes out.

Ya your Q6 sounds retarded too that was probably wrong also...