Examiner’s Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

October 2019

Pearson Edexcel International A Level

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications are awarded by Pearson, the UK’s largest awarding
body. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,
occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit
our qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively,
you can get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page at
www.edexcel.com/contactus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Pearson aspires to be the world’s leading learning company. Our aim is to help
everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of
learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world. We’ve been involved
in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100
languages, we have built an international reputation for our commitment to high
standards and raising achievement through innovation in education. Find out more
about how we can help you and your students at: www.pearson.com/uk

October 2019
Publications Code: WME01_01_1910_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2019
General

The majority of candidates seemed to find the paper to be of a suitable length, but there was
some evidence of a significant number of candidates not finishing the final question. The paper
was found to be challenging and seemed to be a good discriminator at all levels. The last two
questions proved to be by far the most challenging with 44% of candidates scoring the modal
mark of zero on question 7. In the case of question 8, the final question, it wasn’t clear whether
candidates were running out of ideas or running out of time. Question 5 proved to be the most
successful with almost 43% of candidates scoring full marks. Candidates who used large and
clearly labelled diagrams and who employed clear, systematic and concise methods were the
most successful.

In calculations the numerical value of g which should be used is 9.8, as advised in the rubric
on the front of the question paper. Final answers should then be given to 2 (or 3) significant
figures – more accurate answers will be penalised, including fractions but simple exact
multiples of g are usually accepted.

If there is a printed answer to show, then candidates need to ensure that they show sufficient
detail in their working to warrant being awarded all of the marks available. This was especially
true in both parts of question 4.

In all cases, as stated on the front of the question paper, candidates should show sufficient
working to make their methods clear to the examiner and correct answers without working may
not score all, or indeed, any of the marks available.

If a candidate runs out of space in which to give his/her answer than he/she is advised to use a
supplementary sheet – if a centre is reluctant to supply extra paper, then it is crucial for the
candidate to say whereabouts in the script the extra working is going to be done.

Question 1

This impulse-momentum question proved to be a nice starter for many, with 36% of candidates
scoring the modal mark of 6/6. However, 19% of them scoring nothing at all. In part (a), most
used the conservation of momentum principle, but a significant number didn’t realise that the
two particles would be moving with the same speed in the same direction immediately after
the string goes taut. The most common error in the second part was a sign error. A few forgot
that the speed and the magnitude of the impulse had to be positive.

Question 2

This question was poorly answered, especially the second part. In part (a), many candidates
were able to score the first 3 marks by a whole variety of methods, depending on whether they
found a time first or the speed just before the first bounce first. The second two marks were
more difficult to come by with sign errors often playing a part or else rounding errors leading
to an incorrect final answer of 5.72. Candidate are advised, in questions where g = 9.8 has been
used, to always give their final answer to two significant figures. The problem in the second
part was usually miscounting the number of bounces with many candidates using a speed of
7 ms-1 instead of 3.5 ms-1 to find the required height.
Question 3

For those who were able to identify correctly all the forces which were acting, this proved to
be a quick and easy seven marks and 43.5% of all candidates scored all seven. However, there
were many who omitted forces or had them acting in the wrong direction or on the wrong part
of the system. The most common and successful method was to write down the equation of
motion for the trailer and obtain the acceleration and then use it in the equation for the car to
find the value of D. Some used the equation for the whole system. The most common mistake
was omission of the weight components which, if done consistently, fortuitously led to a correct
value of D but this received no credit due to the missing terms in the two equations.

Question 4

This question was quite well-answered with a mean mark of 7 out of the available 12. In part
(a), many candidates were able to correctly write down two correct resolutions, parallel and
perpendicular to the plane, and then use F = µ R to obtain an expression for µ . However,
relatively few were then able to show sufficient working to earn the last 3 marks for obtaining
the given answer. This involved cancelling mg, for one M mark, and then clearly dividing the
top and bottom of their expression, by cos θ for the other M mark before finally using
sin θ
tan θ = to obtain the given answer and the final A1. In the second part, few realised that
cos θ
the statement µ > 0, (or F > 0) was needed to start their deduction. Some showed that µ = 0
when k = 1 and θ = 45o and earned only the first mark. There were few completely correct
solutions making use of an inequality throughout.

Question 5

In the first part, many candidates did not realise that the tension in the rope at A would be zero
when M was at its largest value. This resulted in some very long-winded work which led
nowhere. Also a few mistakenly thought that TA = TB. The most successful candidates took
moments about C and quickly obtained M = 14. A few resolved vertically to obtain TC = 12g
+Mg, then took moments and then substituted for TC to get an equation in M only. Very few
successfully formed two moments equations. Part (b) was generally well done with the most
successful candidates resolving vertically and then taking moments about A or B. Common
mistakes were mainly sign errors or distance errors with 3.5 m often being mistaken for 3 m.

Question 6

The first part was very well answered, with just a few candidates losing the first mark for
having a solid vertical line at the end of their sketch. In part (b), most candidates made use of
the gradient to obtain a correct result, with a few candidates making use of the area to obtain
the alternative result. Very few incorrect solutions were seen. For the third part, successful
solutions were equally split between using a trapezium and using a triangle plus a rectangle to
find the area under the graph. Those who used V = 0.8T usually managed to derive the correct
equation, those who used the alternative and did not realise that V = 0.8T tried to substitute
V = 400/(60 – T) into their trapezium equation and ended up with 200 = 200. In part (d), those
who had the correct equation went on to solve it, sometimes using the quadratic formula rather
than factorising. The vast majority found the two roots but some failed to explain clearly why
they were rejecting 50. Candidates need to be reminded to show working when solving
quadratics as those who had not derived the correct equation sometimes just wrote down an
incorrect answer and received no credit for solving. For the final part, relatively few correct
solutions were seen. Candidates need to appreciate that the question refers to ‘the model’ and
the model is clearly described in the second paragraph of the question. Hence only
modifications to that model received credit.

Question 7

Candidates found this question very challenging and the mean mark was only 2.4 out of 7. Very
few seemed to understand how vectors are added. Some did not even draw a diagram and for
many of those who did, their diagram did not have their vectors ‘top to tail’, which meant they
used 120o in the cosine rule. This received no credit. A significant number thought the
magnitude would be 14, i.e. (2x4) + 6. Successful candidates either applied the cosine rule to
a triangle with sides 6 and 8 and included angle of 60o or resolved in two perpendicular
directions and applied Pythagoras to find the magnitude of P. For part (ii), successful
candidates applied the sine rule or cosine rule to the same triangle, using their answer for the
magnitude of P or used tan on their two components. This angle then needed to be interpreted
as a bearing. A number did not seem to understand the significance of the 2 in 2F.

Question 8

This was the most poorly answered question on the paper with a mean mark of 4.4 out of 14
and just over a third of the candidates scoring zero. There were many completely blank
responses although this may have been due to time pressure. In part (a), some found the
components correctly but had a sign error, some used a unit vector, forgetting that the
magnitude was 40, whilst others just used 40i or 40j. In the second part, the first two marks
were more often gained although some had a sign error. The B mark was almost always scored
as it was a follow through on their answer from part (a). A decent diagram would have helped
with the above. A significant number stopped at this point or at least stopped earning marks.
In the third part, some did not realise that r - s had to be found and instead equated their r and
s. There were often missing brackets, leading to sign errors, or errors when removing the
brackets. A significant number used r - s = 60i and found t by equating i components. Those
who got as far as Pythagoras often scored the next three marks as long as they had found r - s,
but some just squared individual components of r and s, some left out the i’s and j’s and just
squared r and s, whilst others equated the square root to 3600 or the square equal to 60. Several
then managed to pick up a mark because they had obtained a quadratic but scored no more
marks. Those who managed to get this far with a correct quadratic usually scored the next mark
but not the last – they stopped at 12/7 or 103 mins, presumably thinking that this was what was
required. Only 30% of the candidates scored more than 6 marks.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom