Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level

9702 Physics June 2015

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/11
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 C 21 C
2 B 22 A
3 A 23 B
4 D 24 D
5 A 25 B

6 B 26 D
7 D 27 A
8 C 28 B
9 D 29 D
10 D 30 B

11 C 31 D
12 C 32 B
13 A 33 B
14 C 34 D
15 C 35 C

16 C 36 D
17 C 37 A
18 B 38 C
19 D 39 C
20 A 40 B

General Comments

Candidates should be advised never to spend a disproportionately long time on any one question.
Candidates should also be encouraged to use the spaces on the question paper for their working. Care with
units is essential. Prefix errors and mistakes with powers of ten are a cause of many wrong answers. It is
helpful to look critically at any answer to see if it makes basic sense.

Question 22 was found to be relatively straightforward and Questions 3, 17 and 29 were found to be
difficult.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 3

This somewhat unusual question was difficult. Candidates needed to realise that the different units would
cause the value of speed in kilometres per hour to be 3.6 times larger than the value in m s–1. Since v is
squared, the required answer is k1 / 3.62 which is 0.0772 k1.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 7

Many candidates gave answers A and B. Neither of these graphs shows terminal velocity, which is a line of
constant (and non-zero) gradient on a displacement-time graph. The flat section of C suggests that the
sphere is stationary, so this also cannot be correct.

Question 13

The most important fact in answering this question is that a total mass of 10.0 kg is being accelerated (not
8.0 kg). A common error was to solve (2.0 × 9.81 – 6.0) = 8.0 a for the acceleration a, which gives the
incorrect answer B.

Question 16

Many candidates chose D. This shows that candidates must be particularly careful with powers of ten.

Question 17

Candidates found this question difficult. Many chose B, but this ignores both the frictional drag on the car
and the fact that the power from the engine does more than just increase the potential energy of the car.
The correct answer is C because all output power is useful in this situation.

Question 19

This was also a difficult question. The kinetic energy of the sand does increase by ½mv2 but this cannot be
the only power involved (it would imply an infinite acceleration for every grain of sand landing on the belt). A
better approach is to consider momentum. In one second, the momentum of mass m of sand increases from
zero to mv, so the force involved is mv and the power required is mv2.

Question 23

The length is increased from 2.0 cm to 3.0 cm so the extension is increased from 1.0 cm to 2.0 cm. The
area beneath the graph is therefore 3.0 N × 0.01 m = 0.030 J.

Question 29

There is a stationary wave (resonance) in the tube when there is a node at a sealed end and an antinode at
an open end or at the loudspeaker (which is at an open end). The only answer that satisfies this condition is
D. Many candidates chose C but this length of tube could support a stationary wave only if the right-hand
end was open.

Question 32

This question required careful reading. Many candidates took V rather than 2V as the potential difference
across the plates.

Question 36

A simple way to approach this question is to consider that the power dissipated in R is I2R and so must be
zero when R is zero, and must also be zero if R is infinite (as the current I will then be zero). The power
must increase and then decrease as R increases from zero. As R increases, the current I decreases, the
potential difference across R increases, the potential difference across r decreases and the power dissipated
in r (given by I2r) decreases.

Question 38

Here the arrangement is effectively a 10 Ω resistor RST in parallel with a 5 Ω resistor RT, and in series with
another 5 Ω resistor (XR+TY). The total resistance is therefore 5 Ω + 3.3 Ω = 8.3 Ω.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/12
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 C 21 A
2 D 22 B
3 C 23 C
4 C 24 C
5 D 25 B

6 C 26 C
7 D 27 B
8 D 28 B
9 C 29 B
10 C 30 B

11 D 31 C
12 C 32 A
13 A 33 A
14 B 34 D
15 C 35 A

16 D 36 B
17 D 37 A
18 D 38 A
19 A 39 C
20 B 40 C

General Comments

Candidates should be advised never to spend a disproportionately long time on any one question.
Candidates should also be encouraged to use the spaces on the question paper for their working. Care with
units is essential. Prefix errors and mistakes with powers of ten are a cause of many wrong answers. It is
helpful to look critically at any answer to see if it makes basic sense.

Questions 2, 5 and 29 were found to be relatively straightforward and candidates found Question 13 to be
difficult.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 4

This type of question is made easier by drawing on the question paper, and candidates should be encouraged
to do this. When drawing the resultant of the each of the two vectors shown, it becomes clear that the sum of
the two vectors in C has a downward direction so cannot equal vector R.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 6

This question involving both random and systematic error was challenging. The zero error can be removed
but its uncertainty must be added to the measurement uncertainty, so the four sheets have a true thickness of
(1.00 ± 0.04) mm. A single sheet would have a thickness of (0.25 ± 0.01) mm. This has a percentage error
of 4%.

Question 8

Many candidates incorrectly chose B, suggesting that they were considering air resistance to be significant.
Candidates should take care to read the question carefully.

Question 10

A common mistake was to assume that the mass of the rocket is constant. The mass of the rocket must
reduce as the fuel is burnt and so the acceleration increases until there is no fuel left.

Question 13

Candidates found this question to be particularly difficult, suggesting that they would benefit from further work
on Newton’s third law. It is essential to realise that the two equal and opposite forces must act on different
bodies and they must be the same type of force (gravitational or contact/electrostatic in this case).

The weight of the book is the gravitational force exerted on the book by the Earth. The equal and opposite
force to this is the gravitational force exerted on the Earth by the book. The contact force on the table is the
force exerted on the table by the book and the equal and opposite force to this is the contact force exerted on
the book by the table. Four forces are involved, of which two forces act on the book. If the weight of the book
is the ‘action’ force, it must have a ‘reaction’ that is also a gravitational force, so the reaction is the
gravitational force exerted on the Earth by the book.

Question 16

The water flows between X and Y at constant speed, so its kinetic energy does not increase. The loss of
potential energy must be balanced by an increase in elastic potential energy.

Question 19

Candidates should be reminded that, whether molecules are in the solid or liquid state, they have the same
average kinetic energy and same average speed when they are at the same temperature.

Question 22

The elastic limit is just beyond the limit of proportionality, so B is correct.

Question 23

This is a difficult question. Because the wall is thin in comparison with the diameter of the tube, the area of
the annulus is proportional to w. To halve the stress, w must be doubled.

Question 34

Many candidates incorrectly chose A. This cannot be correct because some energy will be dissipated in the
internal resistance of the cell.

Question 37

A simple approach is to ignore the parallel 2.0 Ω resistor in the middle. There is a potential difference of 2.0 V
across 4.0 Ω total in the lower branch, so the current in this branch is 0.5 A. Half of this gives I as 0.25 A.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/13
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 C 21 B
2 D 22 A
3 D 23 C
4 B 24 D
5 B 25 C

6 C 26 D
7 D 27 D
8 D 28 D
9 B 29 C
10 C 30 B

11 C 31 D
12 B 32 D
13 C 33 C
14 A 34 C
15 A 35 A

16 A 36 A
17 A 37 C
18 C 38 D
19 B 39 A
20 B 40 C

General Comments

Candidates should be advised never to spend a disproportionately long time on any one question.
Candidates should also be encouraged to use the spaces on the question paper for their working. Care with
units is essential. Prefix errors and mistakes with powers of ten are a cause of many wrong answers. It is
helpful to look critically at any answer to see if it makes basic sense.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Comments on Specific Questions

Question 3

Candidates found this question difficult. The vector diagram below shows the situation. The angle θ is given
by 85.0 = 200 sin θ.

85.0 km h– 1

200km h– 1

Question 13

Many candidates chose A, but this is not the height above the ground. It is important that candidates read
the question carefully before selecting their answer.

Question 14

This question can be answered quickly by realising that the upthrust is the weight of water displaced. Once
this is established, it becomes clear that the upthrust will be the same on each of the cuboids.

Question 15

Constant velocity implies X = Y + Z. The weight of an air bubble is tiny so this must be Y. The upthrust must
be X as it is the only force with the correct direction, so Z must be the drag.

Question 19

Candidates found this question difficult. Initially force F acting over distance s gives an extra 4.0 J of kinetic
energy. With double the force and double the distance an extra 16 J is provided, so the total kinetic energy
changes from 4.0 J to 20 J. Many candidates chose A, suggesting that they had correctly calculated 16 J but
did not read that the question asks for the final energy, not the increase.

Question 21

This relatively complex situation was correctly interpreted by most candidates.

Question 26

Particular care is needed with this type of question, which requires interpretation of graphs. At the earliest
time there is a sudden jump up, followed by a constant high value of s and finishing with the negative peak.
The answer is therefore D.

Question 29

The amplitude of oscillation at Z is zero, so destructive interference occurs at Z and the difference between
lengths XZ and YZ (10 cm) must be an odd number of half-wavelengths. Only C satisfies this condition with
5 half-wavelengths.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 36

One method to answer this question would be to draw the battery and voltmeter in each of the four circuits.
A common incorrect answer was C. In this circuit, a wire connects Q and R so these points must be at the
same potential, and a voltmeter between these points will read zero.

Question 37

This question requires care, and candidates should be advised to avoid attempting to use ratio methods.
The total resistance of the circuit is 0.588 Ω, and this can be used to determine the potential difference
across the resistors, which is 2.94 V. The current in the 2.0 Ω resistor is therefore 1.5 A.

Question 38

Each of the possibilities must be considered separately before coming to a conclusion. Emission of an
α-particle reduces the number of neutrons in a nucleus by 2. Emission of a β-particle reduces the number of
neutrons by 1. Emission of a γ-ray does not change the number of neutrons.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/21
AS Structured Questions

Key messages

• Candidates should choose their wording carefully, especially when giving a definition or describing a
situation. Often answers are made unclear through the omission of certain key words and inappropriate
use of everyday language.

• When answering questions where an explanation of a specific situation is required, candidates should be
reminded to give detailed answers. Full credit cannot usually be awarded for a statement of general
theory that does not relate to the situation in the question.

• Some credit is awarded for the application and extension of the content of the syllabus. In order to score
highly, candidates need to have a thorough understanding of the subject matter so that they can discuss
sensibly situations that are based on the theoretical work.

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

General Comments

There were many instances where candidates lost credit either through not reading graphs correctly or
through poorly drawn graphs. Candidates should be encouraged to pay careful attention to both of these
aspects when answering questions.

Some candidates did not answer all parts of all questions. However, there was no evidence that adequately
prepared candidates had insufficient time to complete the answers.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

(a) The outcome of the task was provided in the question stem. Credit was awarded for clear
explanation. Most candidates started by giving an appropriate expression for power. Where this
expression was given in term of symbols, then symbols should be explained. Such explanation is
essential where the symbols are not the conventional symbols. For example, it was quite common
to find that the numerator of the expression was given as “wd”, and it was not clear whether this
was “work done” or “energy × distance”.

(b) Most candidates successfully derived the units. A significant number used an expression for
potential as the starting point rather than an expression for electrical power.

Question 2

(a) Speed and velocity may best be defined in terms of rate of change of distance/displacement with
respect to time. In many scripts a ratio was given. Where such a ratio is involved, candidates
should be discouraged from using loose wording, such as “over time” or “with time”.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Some explanations were inadequate because they included only a reference to distance as a
scalar and displacement as a vector. It was expected that explanations would include the terms
“magnitude only” and “magnitude and direction”.

(b) (i) It was expected that candidates would identify the relevant time intervals together with constant
acceleration, rebound and also deceleration to zero speed with the same magnitude as the
acceleration. There were few complete answers. In general, the majority of answers were limited
to a satisfactory identification of the rebound.

(ii) The majority of answers were correct. It was common to find that, although a correct expression
was quoted, either the graph scales were read incorrectly or there was a power-of-ten error.

(iii) 1. In the majority of answers, it was realised that the distance should be calculated from graph areas
and that more than one area is involved. A common mistake was to read the graph scales
incorrectly. In some other answers, incorrect areas were identified.

2. Where a correct answer had been given in part 1 then, in general, this part was completed
successfully.

(iv) Many candidates found it difficult to draw the correct graph shape. The most common errors were
either to omit the section showing the rebound or to indicate times where the speed was constant.

Question 3

(a) There were very many correct answers. A small number of candidates made errors associated
with incorrect directions for the momentum.

(b) Many answers were incorrect. Most candidates made a reference to kinetic energy conservation
but did not make it clear that they were discussing total kinetic energy. Where the answer was
given in terms of speeds, very few mentioned relative speed of approach/separation.

(c) Most answers included statements of Newton’s second and third laws but, for the third law, many
did not apply the law to this situation. Rather, a general statement was given. A reference to the
time of collision being the same for both balls and the relevance of this to rate of change of
momentum was rarely seen.

Question 4

(a) (i) There was a general misconception that a straight line graph automatically implies proportionality
between two quantities. Candidates were expected to consider the coordinates at two points,
taking the ratio of the values at each point and showing that this ratio is constant.

(ii) Power-of-ten errors were very common.

(iii) A correct expression, energy = ½kx2 or ½Fx, was quoted in most answers. Many candidates
realised that the energy is represented by the area below the line of the graph. In many instances,
the area calculated was the area below the line on Fig. 4.2, without taking into consideration that
the origin is not shown on this graph.

(b) Generally, the calculation of the speed was correct, when based on the candidate’s answer in
(a)(iii).

Question 5

(a) A common misconception was that zero current means zero resistance. Some candidates
incorrectly thought that the gradient of the line represents resistance.

(b) Candidates should be reminded that, when sketching a graph, the important features should be
included. Many lines were not correct. It was expected that the line would pass through the origin,
be straight initially and then curve indicating a decreasing gradient, without the gradient becoming
zero. Of those who did produce a satisfactory curve, very few drew the line in the both first and
third quadrants.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(c) (i) This calculation presented very few problems.

(ii) This was completed successfully by the majority of candidates. The most common error was to
assume that there was no internal resistance in the power supply. Candidates should be
encouraged to read the question carefully.

(d) Most answers contained a correct statement that resistance increases as current increases.

Question 6

(a) Terms such as “spreading” were used when referring to diffraction. Very few answers incorrectly
referred to refraction. Most answers for interference did include waves meeting at a point. Very
few went on to discuss interference in terms of the addition of displacements.

(b) In general, relevant formulae were quoted. There was some confusion as regards “lines per
millimetre”. Power-of-ten errors gave rise to some answers which were inappropriate. There may
have been some doubt as to the meaning of “orders of diffracted light” and, consequently, answers
of 3 or 6 orders were accepted.

(c) Generally, candidates who had shown understanding of the concepts in earlier parts of this
question were able to give a satisfactory answer.

Question 7

(a) There was some confusion between electric field and electric field strength. It was expected that
reference would be made to a region of space where charge experiences a force.

(b) (i) Candidates should be encouraged to use a straight edge when drawing straight lines. Frequently,
the pattern was drawn poorly and only the mark for direction could be awarded. It was expected
that equally-spaced, parallel lines would be drawn.

(ii) This was generally answered correctly but some candidates made power-of-ten errors.

(iii) There were some very well explained correct answers. It was common to find that an incorrect
value for charge was used, and in some cases work done was confused with force on the
α-particle.

(iv) It was expected that working would be shown. In some answers, large volumes of algebra were
given, leading to answers which were unrealistic. Others did realise that the ratio would be the
ratio of charges and gave the answer, with or without explanation.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/22
AS Structured Questions

Key Messages

• Candidates should choose their wording carefully, especially when giving a definition or describing a
situation. Often answers are made unclear through the omission of certain key words and inappropriate
use of everyday language.

• When answering questions where an explanation of a specific situation is required, candidates should be
reminded to give detailed answers. Full credit cannot usually be awarded for a statement of general
theory that does not relate to the situation in the question.

• Some credit is awarded for the application and extension of the content of the syllabus. In order to score
highly, candidates need to have a thorough understanding of the subject matter so that they can discuss
sensibly situations that are based on the theoretical work.

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

General Comments

The questions that involved calculations were generally well presented and were completed correctly by the
majority of candidates. Examples of such calculations were in Questions 2, 3 and 5. Questions that
required an explanation of a specific example were often not answered with sufficient precision. Generally
only the basic theory was stated and this was often too vague and did not give the details required,
particularly in Questions 4 and 6. Candidates should be made aware that it not sufficient to repeat a
general theory. The theory should be applied to the specific example in the question.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

(a) This question was generally well answered. The majority of candidates were able to derive the
correct base units for energy from the definition for work done. A small minority ignored the
instruction given in the question to use an equation based on the definition of the work done, and
instead used an expression for power or kinetic energy.

(b) A common mistake was to define potential difference in terms of energy transferred “by unit
charge” or “by one coulomb”, without reference to dividing energy by charge. In general,
candidates correctly understood that potential difference involves the transfer of electrical energy to
other forms of energy. Some candidates either gave no response or an equation involving
potential difference such as current × resistance.

(c) A significant number of well-prepared candidates were able to produce a correct solution. The
majority of candidates were able to start with an expression for resistance. Candidates who started
with R = P / I2 were generally more successful than those who started with R = V / I. Some
candidates incorrectly considered the coulomb as a base unit. There were a number of errors
made such as cancelling A as numerator with A–1 as a denominator.

Question 2

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(a) There were a significant number of answers that suggested that the candidate had not read or
realised that the graph represented displacement against time. Their answers seemed to describe
a velocity against time graph, suggesting that they would benefit from more careful reading of the
question. The description given by some candidates also seemed to ignore that the graph
represented a stone that had been thrown vertically upwards. The description suggested that the
stone had constant velocity for the first and last parts of its path. A significant number of answers
suggested that at time t = 0 the speed was zero and that the speed then increased but was zero at
the maximum displacement. The descriptions of the speed were often not related to the correct
times and therefore credit was not awarded.

(b) (i) The majority of candidates were awarded credit for the initial equation, but many candidates could
not be awarded further credit because they assumed the initial velocity was zero and used the total
time of 3 s in their calculation. Stronger candidates produced well-presented correct solutions.

(ii) Many candidates attempted to calculate the total distance in one calculation using one equation of
motion. These candidates did not realise that the equations of motion gave them the displacement
and could not give the total distance travelled in the 3 s. Many of these candidates also assumed
the velocity was zero at t = 0 and t = 2.5 s. The more able candidates gave the values for the
known quantities at each of the three stages and generally completed the calculation successfully.
The use of g = 10 was less common than in previous series.

(iii) Many candidates found it difficult to interpret the graph and the information given to obtain correct
answers in (i) and (ii), and also found this part difficult. These candidates were unable to interpret
the displacement time graph and were not able to distinguish between distance and displacement.
Candidates with calculations in (ii) involving the displacements for the three stages were usually
able to calculate a correct displacement. The majority of candidates realised that the displacement
was downwards. Many weaker candidates who were unable to calculate a value were able to
deduce the direction from the graph.

(c) There were many correct answers from the candidates who had gained credit in (b). These
candidates produced a velocity-time graph with a constant negative gradient throughout showing a
good understanding of the motion of the stone. A very small minority gave a line with a positive
gradient. There were many responses that indicated a non-uniform acceleration, even from
candidates who had used equations of uniform acceleration in (b).

Question 3

(a) (i) This question was generally well answered.

(ii) Most candidates gained credit. A very small number gave reversed answers to (i) and (ii). A few
candidates did not gain credit as they gave 44 cos 30 or 22√3 as their answer. Candidates should
be reminded that numerical values should always be worked out.

(b) There was a majority of correct answers. A small minority gave an incorrect distance for the
vertical component of F from the point P, or used the value 44 N for F.

(c) The majority of candidates referred only to the conditions required for equilibrium or gave a general
statement of Newton’s third law. Reference to the specific problem was required in order to gain
full credit. The majority of candidates who gained credit described the need to balance the
horizontal component of the force F. Very few candidates referred to the imbalance of the vertical
forces.

(d) The majority of candidates incorrectly drew a horizontal or vertical arrow. Candidates should be
advised that if the instruction in the question is to draw on a particular figure, then it is important to
do this. Credit could not be awarded if the arrow was not on Fig. 3.1.

Question 4

(a) The majority of candidates obtained the correct value for the change in momentum. Weaker
candidates were often able to gain partial credit for the expression for momentum, but then either
gave the initial momentum or subtracted and obtained zero change in momentum.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) A significant number of candidates described the change in momentum of a molecule when
colliding with a wall. The relationship between the force and change in momentum was described
by fewer candidates. A small minority went on to describe the effect of many collisions by a large
number of molecules contributing to the average force over the area of the walls and hence the
pressure. Some candidates referred only to a collision producing a force with no mention of
momentum. This collision was often between molecules rather than with the wall of the container.
Some weaker candidates described the effects on the pressure of changes in temperature or
volume.

(ii) There were very few correct answers. The majority of answers suggested that there would be
more molecules or more collisions but did not go on to state that the frequency of collision would
increase. A common misconception was to suggest that the molecules had a greater mass or
greater speed. A significant number related the pressure in a liquid with the density of the liquid
and did not answer the question.

Question 5

(a) Many candidates drew the correct graph. There were a large number of candidates who drew a
straight line with either a positive or negative gradient. Other common causes of lost credit were to
draw a curved line with a significant section parallel to the temperature axis, showing zero
resistance at high temperatures, or being vertical at low temperatures.

(b) (i) Many candidates repeated the statement in the question. This was either in terms of Kirchhoff’s
second law or in general terms of energy conservation. There was no explanation of why the
energy transformed in the battery was equal to the energy transformed in the three resistors, which
required reference to the internal resistance of the battery.

(ii) This numerical question was generally well answered. The majority of candidates selected the
correct potential difference across the relevant resistor and obtained the correct circuit current.
Weaker candidates often did not read the information carefully and selected an incorrect potential
difference for a particular resistor or ignored the power of ten given in the resistance values.

(iii) This was also generally well answered. The majority of candidates calculated the total resistance
of the circuit and then subtracted the sum of the resistances of Y and Z. The more able candidates
were able to complete the calculation successfully using a potential divider expression.

(iv) Stronger candidates realised that the current would increase owing to a decrease in the resistance
of the thermistor. A more common, but incorrect, answer was to relate a decrease in resistance
with a decrease in potential difference while assuming the current remained constant.

Question 6

(a) The majority of candidates were awarded credit for the difference in terms of energy transfer. Full
credit was not often given. A large number of candidates described stationary waves in vague
terms of nodes and antinodes or being formed by two waves. A minority of candidates were able
to describe the difference in terms of amplitude or phase. There were some answers that only
described a property of one type of wave with no reference to the second type of wave.

(b) (i) The majority of candidates did not gain full credit for this part as the descriptions given were in
general terms and not with reference to the apparatus in the question. Weaker candidates referred
to the source emitting sound waves or did not describe the origin of the waves that travelled to the
reflector.

(ii) The movement of the detector in the correct directions to observe maximum and minimum
deflections on the meter was described by only a small minority of candidates. Many candidates
did not describe moving the detector. The detection of stationary waves was often incorrectly
described in terms of the reading on the meter oscillating when the incident and then the reflected
waves passed the detector. Many candidates stated that the meter would not show any deflection
when stationary waves were formed. The detection was often described in terms of nodes and
antinodes being seen, rather than what was observed on the meter.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(iii) Many answers were not precise enough to gain credit. These answers did not describe the
measurement of the distance between adjacent nodes or antinodes. The distance “from one node
to another node” is not precise enough to suggest how the wavelength can be determined from this
method. The distance has to be measured in some way and only the distance between successive
nodes or antinodes, or a number of successive nodes and antinodes, can be properly related to the
wavelength. There were some answers from weaker candidates that suggested measuring the
speed and frequency of the microwaves to determine the wavelength.

(c) This question was generally well answered. The majority of candidates gave the correct frequency
in GHz. Weaker candidates had difficulty converting Hz to GHz or substituting a value for the
speed of the microwaves.

Question 7

(a) A significant number of candidates included 92 electrons or only stated neutrons and protons
without any numbers being included.

(b) The majority of the candidates obtained at least partial credit. The weaker candidates were
generally unable to determine the numbers required.

(c) A significant number gave at least one of the possible correct answers.

(d) This question was difficult and was correctly answered only by the very able candidates. The
majority of candidates merely restated what was in the question. They referred to the conservation
of mass-energy without discussing the actual nuclear reaction in this question. The total mass on
the left-hand side of the equation was rarely compared to the total mass on the right-hand side.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/23
AS Structured Questions

Key Messages

• Candidates should choose their wording carefully, especially when giving a definition or describing a
situation. Often answers are made unclear through the omission of certain key words and inappropriate
use of everyday language.

• When answering questions where an explanation of a specific situation is required, candidates should be
reminded to give detailed answers. Full credit cannot usually be awarded for a statement of general
theory that does not relate to the situation in the question.

• Some credit is awarded for the application and extension of the content of the syllabus. In order to score
highly, candidates need to have a thorough understanding of the subject matter so that they can discuss
sensibly situations that are based on the theoretical work.

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

General Comments

The questions that involved calculations were generally well presented and were completed correctly by the
majority of candidates. Examples of such calculations were in Questions 2, 3, 5 and 6. Questions that
required an explanation of a specific example were often not answered with sufficient precision. Generally
only the basic theory was stated and this was often too vague and did not give the details required.
Candidates should be made aware that it not sufficient to repeat a general theory. The theory should be
applied to the specific example in the question.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

(a) This question was generally well answered. A small minority of candidates were unable to convert
the distance given into Gm. The conversion of the distance using 106 or 10–6 was a common
source of errors.

(b) The majority of candidates made mistakes with this calculation using speed = distance / time. A
significant number of candidates were unable to obtain the correct distance for the signal to travel
to the satellite and back. Errors were made by not subtracting the radius of the Earth, not
converting the powers of ten correctly and ignoring the distance for the return of the signal. The
weaker candidates were unable to substitute the correct speed for microwaves.

(c) The majority of candidates were able to give the correct base units for the quantities velocity,
density and pressure. Errors were sometimes made rearranging the equation and when cancelling
indices. A significant number of candidates arrived at an incorrect conclusion that C equalled zero
or one instead of showing that C had no unit.

(d) The majority of candidates gave the correct answers. A significant number of candidates actually
gave the vector quantities, so either had confused vectors with scalars or misread the question.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(e) (i) This question was generally well answered. Candidates tended to lose credit for not including
arrows on their vector triangle or inserting an arrow for the direction of the boat that showed the
boat returning to the river bank. There were some candidates who ignored the instruction to draw
a vector triangle on Fig. 1.1. These candidates could not be given full credit. Candidates should
be advised that, if the question asks for information to be added to a figure, then the addition
should be made on that figure and not on a redrawn diagram.

(ii) A significant number of candidates obtained the correct answer by drawing a scale diagram. There
were only a minority of candidates able to obtain the answer by calculation. These candidates
used the cosine rule or resolved the velocity vectors. There was an assumption made by some
candidates that the boat went directly across the river and that the triangle was a right-angled
triangle. This was not a valid solution.

Question 2

(a) The majority of candidates obtained credit for describing the first part of the motion from t = 0 to
t = 8 s. The weaker candidates lost credit by omitting to state that the acceleration was constant.
The majority of candidates did not gain credit for their description of the second part of the motion.
The statements either suggested that the direction of motion of the ball changed at 8 s or the times
were not given as t = 8 s to t = 16 s for the constant deceleration. A significant number of
candidates misread the graph and stated that the velocity reached 16 m s–1 in the final stage.

(b) (i) This was well answered by the majority of candidates. A small minority calculated the
displacement by subtracting the displacement for the time t = 8 s to t = 10 s from the displacement
for the first 8 s. These candidates considered that the change in direction occurred at 8 s even
though the velocity was still in the same positive direction.

(ii) The majority of candidates answered this correctly. The weaker candidates did not realise that the
acceleration at 10 s was the same as that for the motion from 8 s to 16 s and tried to use the
velocity at 10 s to calculate the acceleration.

(iii) This was well answered by the majority of candidates. A small minority used the velocity at 8 s as
the maximum velocity (the peak of the graph) and a few did not convert the mass into kg.

(c) This was well answered only by the more able candidates. The majority of candidates did not
realise that the ball started to move back to point P after 10 s. There were some candidates who
calculated the time taken to move back to P but did not include the time taken to get to P in their
final answer.

Question 3

(a) A significant number of candidates gave a definition in which it was not clear that power is work
done per unit time. Candidates should be advised not to use expressions such as “over time”, “in a
certain time” or “in a unit of time”.

(b) (i) This calculation was well answered by a large majority of candidates. A small minority calculated
the resultant force and gave this as the force required from the car, ignoring the resistive force.

(ii) This was well answered by the majority of candidates. A significant number were unable to start
with an equation that linked power with the speed of the car.

(c) A small minority were able to explain why the car has a maximum speed. Many candidates
described the conditions for terminal velocity. Some answers compared different quantities such
as suggesting that the output power was unable to overcome the resistive force or the acceleration
becomes equal to the resistive force.

Question 4

(a) (i) A majority of candidates were able to name the instrument for measuring the diameter and length
of the wire. The load was often assumed to be given or on the masses themselves. The extension
was often measured using calipers even though the values were similar to the diameter. Vague
answers like a ruler for the length and a “scale” for weight were given by a significant number of
candidates. Blank spaces were left for at least one instrument by a large number of candidates.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(ii) A small minority of candidates explained the reason for taking a series of readings in terms of
reducing random errors. A small number suggested using a graph to check for proportionality
between force and extension. The majority of answers were too vague to be awarded credit, such
as “to determine the strain” or “to determine the Young modulus” (which restates the question).
Others made a reasonable suggestion that the values could be used to check whether the elastic
limit had been exceeded.

(b) A very small number of candidates suggested using the series of readings to plot a graph and then
use the gradient to determine the Young modulus. The majority suggested using one set of values
to determine a value for the Young modulus or merely quoted the equations for stress and strain.

Question 5

(a) This was well answered by a large majority of candidates. A very small minority either did not
know the correct equation for resistivity or were unable to calculate the cross-sectional area.
Candidates should be reminded that the full substitution and working should be shown in “show
that” questions.

(b) (i) A large number of candidates were able to complete this calculation. Weaker candidates used the
e.m.f. of the power supply for the p.d. across resistor R. A significant number of candidates were
able to calculate the resistance of the wire but then made errors in calculating the total resistance
for the parallel combination.

(ii) Most candidates gave an appropriate expression for power. There were only a small number who
used the correct current or p.d. for the wire AB. The majority used the current determined in (i) or
the p.d. of the power supply.

(iii) The solution was obtained only by the more able candidates. The majority of candidates were
unable to determine the currents through the two parallel sections or the p.d. across the resistors in
the two sections. A significant number of candidates left this part blank.

Question 6

(a) (i) This question was well answered by the majority of candidates. A significant number of candidates
gave incorrect statements for coherence, referring only to the same frequency, the same
wavelength or the same phase.

(ii) This was well answered by the majority of candidates. Some candidates misread the x-axis when
determining the wavelength and some did not substitute the given value for the speed of the wave.

(iii) A number of candidates gave a distance from the graph or gave a half the correct value.

(iv) A minority of candidates were able to add the two waves successfully. There was a relatively large
number of blank answers. This type of exercise should be practised by candidates as it gives a
good insight into the principle of superposition.

(b) (i) The majority of candidates were able to determine the distance between the maxima. Only a small
number of candidates then went on to determine the distance AB required by the question. A
significant number left the question blank or tried to use an incorrect expression.

(ii) This question was well answered by the more able candidates. There was a significant number
who either left the question blank, considered blue light to have a longer wavelength than the laser
light or gave no explanation.

Question 7

(a) (i) A significant number of candidates confused spontaneous decay with random decay.

(ii) A small minority gave the particles in the nucleus of X. The majority merely stated that X was an
α-particle or helium nucleus. These candidates did not appear to have read the question carefully.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(b) (i) A very small number of candidates described the mass on the left-hand side being greater than the
total mass on the right-hand side of the equation. Only the strongest candidates were able to
equate this difference in mass with the energy released.

(ii) A minority of candidates were able to complete this conversion. There were many blank spaces or
attempts that involved incorrect physics. Candidates should practice converting eV into joules and
vice versa.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/31
Advanced Practical Skills 1

Key Messages

• Candidates should be reminded that they should always plot all of their tabulated readings on the graph
in Question 1. If some of the readings do not fit on the graph grid, then a different scale should be
chosen.

• Many candidates find it difficult to choose scales that make good use of the graph grid. The aim should
be to occupy the majority of the graph grid. If less than half of the grid is occupied in one direction, the
range of the corresponding axis can be halved to make better use of the grid.

• When deciding whether the relationship in Question 2 is true, candidates should be encouraged to
make a quantitative comparison and then make a precise statement consistent with the comparison. A
vague phrase such as “within experimental accuracy” is not sufficient.

• To score highly on Question 2, candidates should be reminded that their identified limitations and
suggestions for improvement must be focused on the particular experiment being carried out. General
points such as “avoid parallax error” or “use more precise measuring instruments” will not usually gain
credit without further detail. Candidates should be encouraged to write about four different problems and
consequently four different solutions to address these problems, and should not try to state four solutions
to the same problem.

General Comments

Most candidates were confident in setting the circuit up for Question 1 and manipulating the apparatus for
Question 2.

Some candidates showed the need for further practical work with electrical circuits and use of meters. When
taking a reading from an ammeter, candidates should take particular care to check the scale. In Question 1
the scale used was 0 to 200 mA therefore values would be of the order of mA, not A.

Centres generally did not have any difficulties in providing the equipment required for use by the candidates.
Any deviation between the requested equipment and that provided to the candidates should be written down
in the Supervisor’s Report, and this report must be sent with the scripts to Cambridge so that the Examiners
can take this into consideration when marking. Experiments are designed with the view that Centres will
have the apparatus as outlined in the syllabus available for use. Any help given to a candidate should be
noted on the Supervisor’s Report. Supervisors are reminded that help should not be given with the
recording of results, graphical work or analysis.

With electrical experiments, Centres need to be vigilant to provide working meters and supplies which are
well tested before the examination.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

In this question, candidates were required to investigate how the current in a circuit varied as the resistance
of the circuit was changed.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Successful collection of data

(a) (ii) Most candidates attached the crocodile clips and adjusted the length of wire between the clips to
approximately 50 cm. The measured length w should be recorded with the unit. Taking care with
units ensured success, whereas some candidates taking less care received no credit for answers
such as 50.4 with the unit omitted or 50.4 m where the unit did not match the number. The length
given is to guide the candidate into the experiment. Some candidates missed this information and
measured a value outside the required range.

(c) (iii) Looking carefully at the range on the ammeter led to a successful answer e.g. 74.2 mA. Ignoring
the ammeter range led to an invalid value such as 74.2 A. Some candidates measured values out
of range, but they could be awarded credit if this was close to the Supervisor’s value.

(d) Successful candidates collected six sets of values for w, IA and IB showing that as w increased
both IA and IB decreased. Candidates are advised to think carefully about their technique for
taking readings. A consistent set of results with a correct trend could be obtained by starting with a
small value of w and gradually increasing w, rather than increasing and decreasing the length
which led to variation in results if not done carefully.

Range and distribution of values

(d) Successful candidates considered the whole length of the 110 cm piece of wire to which they were
attaching crocodile clips. Consequently, w varied from approximately 20 cm to 90 or 100 cm.
Many candidates chose to vary the length by only 50 cm, and some by only 10 cm, and this range
was too small to gain credit.

Quality of data

(e) (i) Most candidates who were able to collect a full set of readings were awarded credit for the quality
of data.

Table

(d) Many candidates successfully included a quantity with correct units in every column heading.
These candidates remembered to include the quantity and a separating mark, such as a solidus,
between the quantity and unit. The majority of candidates were comfortable giving w / cm and
IA / mA or IB / A but often omitted the unit for the calculated quantity. Those who attempted a unit for
(IA + IB)/IAIB often successfully gave A–1 or 1/A. Some candidates needed to complete their
determination of the unit as A/A2 or 2A/A2 did not gain credit. When candidates included a column
for IAIB they often correctly gave IAIB / A2.

The metre rule provided had millimetre markings and successful candidates used millimetres when
recording their values of w, e.g. 0.449 m or 32.0 cm. Values recorded as 0.45 m or 32 cm did not
gain credit. Candidates lost credit when they added an extra zero and stated w values to the
nearest tenth of a millimetre e.g. 0.4490 m.

Most candidates were able to calculate (IA + IB)/IAIB correctly and strong candidates used 3 s.f. in
the raw data for current and 3 s.f. in the final value of (IA + IB)/IAIB. Many of the errors in the
calculations were due to incorrect rounding of the final value. When considering significant figures
it should be the column containing the raw (initial) current readings that is used as the source data.

Graph

(e) (i) Candidates were asked to plot a graph of (IA + IB)/IAIB on the y-axis against w on the x-axis and
good answers gained credit for using axes that were labelled, with scales that were easy to use
and with points spreading over more than half the grid.

Considering w on the x-axis, a scale used by successful candidates used one large square to
represent 10 cm so that each small square had a value of 1 cm. An awkward scale on the x-axis
was 15 small squares to represent 10 cm, and consequently each square had a value of 0.667
which is not easy to work with and could not be awarded credit.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Successful candidates checked that axes were labelled as (IA + IB)/IAIB and w. Candidates gained
credit for plotting all the tabulated readings accurately to within half a small square. Some
candidates can improve by using sharp pencils to draw finer points; any points drawn that have a
diameter larger than half a small square are not credited.

(ii) Successful candidates were able to draw a good line of best fit through their six points with points
balanced well along the whole length of the line. Candidates were also successful when drawing a
line through five trend points with one anomalous point identified. When a point is identified as
anomalous for the purposes of drawing the best line, this point should be indicated clearly on the
graph, e.g. by drawing a small circle around the point.

Candidates should be advised that, before marking a point as anomalous, they should check that
the point is plotted correctly, that the calculation for that point is correct and there is no arithmetical
error, and also that their scale increases regularly and there is no gap in values on the axis e.g. 10,
30, 40. They should also check the measurements to be sure the readings were taken and
recorded correctly. Only one point, if any, should be identified as anomalous.

When a line is drawn successfully, candidates look at the balance of points. Those candidates who
choose to join the first and last points or join up a few points on their line often produce a line which
needs to be rotated.

Interpretation of graph

(e) (iii) Many candidates used a suitably large triangle to calculate the gradient, gaining credit for correct
read-offs, and substituted into Δy/Δx to find the gradient. Other candidates needed to check that
the read-offs used were within half a small square of the line of best fit, show clearly the
substitution into Δy/Δx (not Δx/Δy), and check that the triangle for calculating the gradient is large
enough (the hypotenuse should be greater than half the length of the line drawn).

When taking the read-off to find the intercept, successful candidates checked that the x-value
where the read-off was taken was actually at x = 0. Often the scale began at, for example,
w = 10 cm, and the candidate assumed that it was x = 0. When making the substitution, care
needed to be taken that the x-value and y-value are put into the correct places in the equation.
Candidates should take care to use c = y – mx and not c = y / mx.

Drawing conclusions

(f) Successful candidates recognised that M was equal to the value of the gradient and N was equal to
the value of the intercept calculated in (e)(iii). Consequently, they made a straightforward transfer
of the values in (e)(iii) to (f) and gained full credit. No calculation needed to be done to find M and
N. Correct units were given by successful candidates, but some other answers did not have the
correct powers for A–1 m–1 (not A m). Units were often omitted.

Question 2

In this question, candidates were required to investigate the balance of two wooden strips with different
lengths.

Successful collection of data

(a) (i) Most candidates successfully recorded a value of L with a consistent unit and in range e.g.
59.1 cm. Successful candidates noticed that they needed to add a unit on the answer line. There
were some values of (e.g.) 59 m or just 59.

Measuring the length of the piece of wood was a static observation. Candidates could take all the
precautions they needed to produce an accurate measurement, e.g. place the scale close to and
parallel with the strip, line up their head with the scale on the metre rule which was accurately
calibrated to the nearest mm, and take time to make the observation. Therefore this measurement
was not regarded as a source of uncertainty. Many candidates suggested it as a source of
uncertainty in the final section, often commenting on zero or parallax errors when using the metre
rule to measure L. Neither of these ideas gained credit.

(ii) Many candidates recorded a value of m to the nearest gram.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) Many candidates recorded a value of M to the nearest gram.

(c) (ii) Successful candidates balanced the strip, recorded distance x to the nearest millimetre and stated
the unit e.g. 9.7 cm. Recording x to the nearest cm or adding an extra zero (recording to the
nearest tenth of a millimetre) were common causes of lost credit.

(d) Most candidates recorded a second value for L and x.

Quality of data

(d) Most candidates found that, when L was reduced using the second strip, the value of x also
reduced, gaining credit.

Display of calculation and reasoning

(a) (iv) Successful candidates noticed that the quantity p was found using the values of m and L so stated
that the value of p was given to the same number of significant figures as the values of m and L.
Candidates must state m and L (or the quantities relevant to the question) in their answer. Phrases
such as ‘raw data’ or ‘the values in the calculation’ did not gain credit. A few candidates stated
‘3 s.f.’ without any reasoning and this also did not gain credit.

(b) (iii) The calculation of C was successfully done by those candidates who correctly substituted their M
value rather than the m value and understood how to interpret the brackets.

(e) (i) Most candidates were able to successfully rearrange the equation and calculate k = x / C correctly
for both experiments, although some candidates misunderstood how to rearrange and used
k = C / x. Successful candidates gave their answers to 2 or 3 s.f. Some candidates rounded their
answers to one significant figure so that both k values were identical, and this did not gain credit.
Attempts to use metres and kg were common but often led to arithmetical errors.

Drawing conclusions

(e) (ii) Successful candidates had three steps in their arguments. They stated a percentage uncertainty
that they thought was a sensible limit for the percentage uncertainty of this particular experiment
such as 5% or 20% or the percentage uncertainty found in (e)(iii), they calculated the percentage
difference between their values of k, and they then compared the percentage difference with the
percentage uncertainty and decided whether or not the relationship was supported. If the
percentage difference between the two k values was less than the stated criterion, then the
successful answers stated the relationship was supported. Candidates should understand that if
the value of the percentage difference is greater than the value of the percentage uncertainty
stated as the criterion, then the relationship is not supported and the candidate should state this
e.g. “the relationship is not supported”.

Estimating uncertainties

(c) (iii) Most candidates were familiar with the equation for calculating percentage uncertainty, though few
made a realistic estimate of the absolute uncertainty in x of 2 mm – 5 mm. Many candidates stated
the uncertainty as 1 mm or 0.5 mm.

Candidates should be reminded that the absolute uncertainty in the value of x depends not only on
the precision of the measuring instrument being used but also on the nature of the experiment
itself. In this particular experiment it is difficult to judge to the centre of the mass, and the rule
cannot actually touch the wooden strip or the balance would be disturbed. Realising these
difficulties, successful candidates recorded repeat measurements of x. When repeat readings
were taken the absolute uncertainty could be calculated as half the range of the repeated values,
but not the full range. The half-range calculation needed to be shown so that it was clear how the
estimate of absolute uncertainty has been produced.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Evaluation

(f) Successful candidates thought about difficulties while performing the experiment and made useful
suggestions in (f).

Good answers suggested detailed limitations and improvements specific to this balancing
experiment. The best answers made specific points about where the major challenges were in the
accurate measurement of x and the accurate positioning of the mass. Candidates were presented
with a strip that would only be in balance for a short time and was very easy to displace while
measuring x. One challenge was to measure x accurately. A suggestion of changing the strip for a
rule was not credited, but the suggestion of adding a scale to the strip was made by stronger
candidates.

Some candidates were able to state that two readings were not enough to draw a conclusion. As a
solution, many candidates gained credit for suggesting taking more readings and plotting a graph.
Candidates often stated that ‘the measurement of x was difficult’, but on its own this statement is
not enough. An appropriate reason for the difficulty was needed. Similarly a statement such as ‘it
was difficult to balance the strip’ was not enough, and candidates needed to add a reason such as
‘because the pivot moved’. It was not sufficient to state that the strip was difficult to balance
without giving a reason. The key to success in this section is for candidates to identify genuine
problems associated with setting up this experiment. The three areas to consider here were
balancing, mass position and obtaining accurate readings for x.

Candidates can improve their answers by stating the method used for each improvement. In doing
this candidates should look at how each improvement helps and improves this particular
experiment.

Credit is not given for suggestions of standard laboratory technique that could be carried out in the
original experiment, such as repeating measurements or avoiding parallax errors. Vague or
generic answers such as ‘systematic error’ or ‘use an assistant’ are not given credit.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/32
Advanced Practical Skills 2

Key Messages

• Candidates should be reminded that they should always plot all of their tabulated readings on the graph
in Question 1. If some of the readings do not fit on the graph grid, then a different scale should be
chosen.

• Many candidates find it difficult to choose scales that make good use of the graph grid. The aim should
be to occupy the majority of the graph grid. If less than half of the grid is occupied in one direction, the
range of the corresponding axis can be halved to make better use of the grid.

• When deciding whether the relationship in Question 2 is true, candidates should be encouraged to
make a quantitative comparison and then make a precise statement consistent with their comparison. A
vague phrase such as “within experimental accuracy” is not sufficient.

• To score highly on Question 2, candidates should be reminded that their identified limitations and
suggestions for improvement must be focused on the particular experiment being carried out. General
points such as “avoid parallax error” or “use more precise measuring instruments” will not usually gain
credit without further detail. Candidates should be encouraged to write about four different problems and
consequently four different solutions to address these problems, and should not try to state four solutions
to the same problem.

General Comments

Centres generally did not have any difficulties in providing the equipment required for use by the candidates.
Any deviation between the requested equipment and that provided to the candidates should be written down
in the Supervisor’s Report, and this report must be sent with the scripts to Cambridge so that the Examiners
can take this into consideration when marking. Experiments are designed with the view that Centres will
have the apparatus as outlined in the syllabus available for use. Any help given to a candidate should be
noted on the Supervisor’s Report. Supervisors are reminded that help should not be given with the
recording of results, graphical work or analysis.

Centres are reminded of the importance of following the Confidential Instructions exactly, using the materials
and equipment specified. No ‘extra’ equipment should be available to the candidates. In some cases this
may disadvantage candidates.

Nearly all candidates had time to complete both questions, and results and analysis were generally clearly
presented. Very few candidates asked for help with using the apparatus. The standard shown in
calculations was very good, and usually included accurate rounding of answers.

Some candidates gave answers from previous papers in the evaluation section of Question 2. These
should not be included unless they are relevant to this particular experiment.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

In this question, candidates investigated the supporting forces on a beam under various loads.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Successful collection of data

(c) Most candidates were able to record initial values of h and x in the expected range.

(d) Most candidates recorded six or more different values for h and x. In most cases, the x values
showed the expected trend (increasing as h decreased). For a few candidates the value of x
hardly changed, suggesting that the heights of both bosses had been changed when levelling the
beam, instead of just boss A.

Range and distribution of values

(d) The best candidates were able to produce a range of x values that used the whole length of the
beam. Candidates should be advised always to look at the range of values that their apparatus
can provide, and try to use as much of the available range as possible.

Quality of data

(e) (i) Most candidates produced results with a good linear trend without much scatter, demonstrating
good quality results.

Table

(d) Most tables were neat and well-organised. Stronger candidates used headings with suitable units
where appropriate, with clear separation from their quantity. In a few cases the quantity x / h was
mistakenly given a unit, usually cm.

Values for h and x were measured using a metre rule, and most candidates correctly recorded all
their values to the nearest millimetre. Some candidates lost credit because they added a
meaningless zero to each of their measurements and so did not record their results to the precision
of the metre rule.

Calculated values of x / h were nearly always accurate, with incorrect rounding only in very few
cases.

Stronger candidates knew how many significant figures to use for their calculated values of x / h.
For example x = 8.0 cm and h = 62.3 cm could lead to either x / h = 0.13 or x / h = 0.128.

Graph

(e) (i) Good graphs showed simple, clearly labelled scales with all points from the table clearly and
accurately plotted using small crosses. Where dots were used they were sometimes too large
(over 1 mm in diameter), so that the intended position was not clear.

There were several cases of awkward scales, the most common error being one large square
representing a value of 0.03. These scales making plotting and reading more difficult, and
mistakes more likely. Some scales were very compressed, so that only a small part of the grid was
used.

(ii) Not all of the drawn lines were the lines of best fit. In some cases the line was too far from one or
more points, and in others the line was drawn to join the first and last points regardless of the
distribution of the other points. There should always be a balanced distribution of points either side
of the line along the entire length.

Interpretation of graph

(e) (iii) Nearly all candidates knew how to calculate the gradient of their line using coordinates from two
points, though in a few cases the points were chosen from the table and did not lie on the drawn
line of best fit.

Most candidates whose x / h axis started at zero read the intercept directly from their graph. Where
it did not start at zero, weaker candidates often made the mistake of reading the intercept from the
x / h axis instead of calculating a correct value using y = mx + c.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Drawing conclusions

(f) The majority of candidates inspected the equation and correctly equated a with the gradient value
and b with the intercept value. Identifying the correct units for these constants was more difficult,
and in many cases the units were omitted.

Question 2

This experiment investigated the surface tension force on a wire loop.

Successful collection of data

(a) (ii) Candidates were required to find the diameter of a wire loop and state the value in centimetres.
The only measuring instrument available was a 30 cm ruler, so the measured value of D could only
be made to the nearest 0.1 cm. Many candidates gave their values to an incorrect precision of
0.01 cm.

Stronger candidates recognised that the loop may not have been circular, so they took several
measurements and averaged them.

(d) The values of r1 and r2 were read directly from the ruler, so stronger candidates gave them to the
nearest 0.1 cm. Some weaker candidates added an extra zero, and others omitted the unit.

(e) Nearly all candidates repeated the experiment using the second loop which had a different
diameter. In most cases the expected trend was found, i.e. the difference between r1 and r2 was
greater when the loop diameter was greater.

Display of calculation and reasoning

(a) (iv) The calculation of the loop circumference C was done well, with only a few candidates omitting a
correct unit.

(b) The majority of candidates knew that the number of significant figures given for C should be based
on the raw data used in its calculation, i.e. their measurements of D. However, many candidates
also mistakenly considered the constant π as raw data, even though its value does not have a fixed
number of significant figures.

(f) (i) Most candidates successfully calculated two values for the constant k. A few candidates made
mistakes when rearranging the equation or when transferring values into the equation, and a small
number rounded their k values to 1 significant figure.

Drawing conclusions

(f) (ii) There were many good answers here, with clearly reasoned discussion based on the two k values.
Some looked at the relative difference between the two values (i.e. the percentage difference) and
compared it with the variation that could reasonably be expected for this experiment, such as 20%.
Some applied their chosen percentage variation to each k value and then looked for overlap.
Weaker answers discussed only whether the difference between k values was ‘large’ or ‘small’.

Estimating uncertainties

(a) (iii) Although the loop diameter D was measured to the nearest millimetre, the loop itself was not a
perfect circle, so there was an uncertainty of between 2 and 5 mm in its value. Many candidates
did not take this into account and simply used the 1 mm precision of their measuring instrument.
Stronger candidates used an uncertainty greater than 1 mm, or alternatively used half the range of
their repeated measurements of diameter.

Evaluation

(g) Most candidates made a good attempt at evaluating the experiment. Many candidates were
credited for the general criticism that the validity of the equation could not be judged from only two
values of k. More tests were needed using different loop diameters, followed by more
comparisons.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Many candidates talked about some of the difficulties listed in the mark scheme, and good answers
included reference to both the measurement and the difficulty, e.g. “the loop touched the beaker
wall, and this may have affected the value of r2”.

For measuring an instantaneous value (such as r2) the idea of a video recording is often
suggested. For this it is important to make clear that the means of measurement (the ruler scale) is
included in the frame.

Many candidates suggested the use of ‘better’ equipment or computers/data loggers/sensors

without describing how such equipment would be used. Credit is not given for suggestions of
standard laboratory technique that could be carried out in the original experiment, such as
repeating measurements or avoiding parallax errors. Vague or generic answers such as
‘systematic error’ or ‘use an assistant’ are not given credit.

The key to this section is for candidates to identify genuine problems associated with setting up this
experiment and in obtaining readings. Candidates are encouraged to suggest detailed practical
solutions that either improve technique or give more reliable data.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/33
Advanced Practical Skills 1

Key Messages

• Candidates should be reminded that they should always plot all of their tabulated readings on the graph
in Question 1. If some of the readings do not fit on the graph grid, then a different scale should be
chosen.

• Many candidates find it difficult to choose scales that make good use of the graph grid. The aim should
be to occupy the majority of the graph grid. If less than half of the grid is occupied in one direction, the
range of the corresponding axis can be halved to make better use of the grid.

• When deciding whether the relationship in Question 2 is true, candidates should be encouraged to
make a quantitative comparison and then make a precise statement consistent with their comparison. A
vague phrase such as “within experimental accuracy” is not sufficient.

• To score highly on Question 2, candidates should be reminded that their identified limitations and
suggestions for improvement must be focused on the particular experiment being carried out. General
points such as “avoid parallax error” or “use more precise measuring instruments” will not usually gain
credit without further detail. Candidates should be encouraged to write about four different problems and
consequently four different solutions to address these problems, and should not try to state four solutions
to the same problem.

General Comments

Centres generally did not have any difficulties in providing the equipment required for use by the candidates.
Any deviation between the requested equipment and that provided to the candidates should be written down
in the Supervisor’s Report, and this report must be sent with the scripts to Cambridge so that the Examiners
can take this into consideration when marking. Experiments are designed with the view that Centres will
have the apparatus as outlined in the syllabus available for use. Any help given to a candidate should be
noted on the Supervisor’s Report. Supervisors are reminded that help should not be given with the
recording of results, graphical work or analysis.

Centres are reminded of the importance of following the Confidential Instructions exactly, using the materials
and equipment specified. No ‘extra’ equipment should be available to the candidates. In some cases this
may disadvantage candidates.

The general standard of the work done by the candidates was good, with many excellent scripts. Candidates
did not seem to be short of time and both questions were attempted by almost all the candidates. They
demonstrated good skills in the generation and handling of data but could improve by giving more thought to
the analysis and evaluation of experiments.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

In this question, candidates were asked to investigate how the position of a suspended card varies with the
distribution of masses attached to it.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Successful collection of data

(b) (iv) The majority of candidates stated a value of y to within 0.5 cm of that expected (half the length of
the card). Some candidates omitted the units.

(c) (ii) With the added slotted mass, most candidates correctly found that their new value of y was larger
than that found in (b)(iv).

(d) Most candidates were able to collect six sets of values of m and y without any assistance from the
Supervisor. If candidates choose to record more than the prescribed six sets of values, it is
important that all the extra points are plotted on the graph.

Range and distribution of values

(d) Many candidates did not extend their range of m values to include m = 0 g and m = 50 g or 60 g.
Many candidates did not include m = 0 g despite being asked to include their results from (b).

Quality of data

(e) (i) Most candidates were awarded credit for the quality of their data. Some candidates lost credit
because their graphs were based on incorrect calculations of y(C + m).

Table

(d) Most candidates were awarded credit for using the correct column headings in their tables, giving
both the quantity recorded and suitable units for each quantity, with the two separated by a solidus
or with the units in brackets. Some candidates either omitted the units for y(C + m), omitted the
separating mark or recorded the units for y(C + m) as cm2 g, g2 m, 2 cm g, (g + g) cm or cm / g rather
than cm g. Some candidates either omitted the mass column or the y(C + m) column making
plotting the graph difficult.

Many candidates recorded their raw values for y to the nearest 0.1 cm, gaining credit. Some
candidates incorrectly stated their y values to the nearest cm or presented trailing zeros to a
greater precision than 1 mm when the measuring instrument provided (a ruler) can be read only to
the nearest mm.

Many candidates calculated values for y(C + m) correctly, though a few rounded their answers
incorrectly.

Some candidates recorded their calculated values for y(C + m) to an appropriate number of
significant figures. Some candidates recorded their values to an inflated number of significant
figures, sometimes up to seven significant figures when the mass was stated to two significant
figures. It is expected that candidates record their calculated values to either the same number, or
one more than, the least number of significant figures used in the raw readings of y, C and m.

Graph

(e) (i) The size of the graph axes chosen was generally good so that the plotted points occupied greater
than half the graph grid available. Many candidates drew awkward scales on the y-axis (commonly
multiples of three) and could not be awarded credit for the axes. This often also led to the loss of
credit for plotting or for incorrect read-offs for the gradient and intercept because the scale was
difficult to use correctly. Some candidates incorrectly placed their top point on the top line and their
bottom point on the bottom line and divided the scale accordingly, which gave a very awkward
scale.

Many candidates gained credit for plotting their tabulated readings correctly. Some candidates
plotted y against m or (C + m) against m which was not asked for. A few candidates labelled the
axes y(C + m) when in fact the values plotted were other combinations of y, C and m. If a point
seems anomalous, candidates should repeat the measurement to check that an error in recording
the values has not been made. If such a point is ignored in assessing the line of best fit, the
anomalous point should be labelled clearly, e.g. by circling the point.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Most candidates plotted their points on the graph grid with great care. Others needed to draw the
plotted points so that the diameters of the points were equal to, or less than, half a small square (a
small pencil cross is recommended). Some candidates can improve by plotting the points more
accurately and by ensuring they use a sharp pencil and a straight ruler.

(ii) Some candidates were able to draw carefully considered lines of best fit, but others joined the first
and last points on the graph regardless of the distribution of the other points. There should always
be a balanced distribution of points either side of the line along the entire length. Many lines
needed rotation to get a better fit, or an anomalous point needed to be identified to justify the line
drawn. Some candidates lost credit for lines that were kinked in the middle (candidates used too
small a ruler), by drawing a double line (broken pencil tip) or by drawing freehand lines without the
aid of a ruler.

Interpretation of graph

(e) (iii) Many candidates used a suitably large triangle to calculate the gradient, gaining credit for correct
read-offs, and substituted into Δy/Δx to find the gradient. Other candidates needed to check that
the read-offs used were within half a small square of the line of best fit, show clearly the
substitution into Δy/Δx (not Δx/Δy), and check that the triangle for calculating the gradient is large
enough (the hypotenuse should be greater than half the length of the line drawn).

Many candidates were able to correctly read off the y-intercept at x = 0 directly from the graph.

Many candidates correctly substituted a read-off into y = mx + c to determine the y-intercept.

Others needed to check that the point chosen was actually on the line of best fit and not just a point
from the table.

Drawing conclusions

(f) Most candidates recognised that A was equal to the value of the gradient and B was equal to the
twice the value of the intercept divided by the gradient. A few candidates confused m, the gradient
in y = mx + c with the mass m, which is the x variable. A few candidates tried to calculate A and B
by first substituting values into the given equation and then solving simultaneous equations, or by
repeating the calculations already completed in (e)(iii). No credit is given for this as the question
specifically asks for the answers in (e)(iii) to be used to determine A and B.

The majority of candidates recorded the correct units for A (cm or m) and B (g or kg) correctly.
Others stated incorrect units or omitted the units for A and B.

Question 2

In this question, candidates were required to investigate the motion of a small container in water.

Successful collection of data

(a) (i) Some candidates recorded a value for d in the range 10.0 mm to 25.0 mm and for D in the range
20.0 mm to 40.0 mm with a correct unit. Many candidates recorded values out of range, possibly
because of difficulty using the calipers. Many candidates stated the precision inconsistently
between d and D. Candidates were expected to state their value to the smallest reading on the
calipers e.g. D = 3.55 cm.

(ii) Many candidates recorded a value of h with a consistent unit.

(d) (ii) Most candidates recorded a value of t with a unit. A minority of candidates omitted the unit or
misread the stopwatch and recorded 0.0001 s or 0.01 s instead of 1 s, or 83 s instead of 0.83 s.
Some candidates did not record repeat readings either here or in (e).

(e) Most candidates recorded second values for x and t.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Quality of data

(e) Most candidates recorded values for t which were smaller for the container with three marbles.

Display of calculation and reasoning

(b) (iii) Many candidates correctly calculated x.

(c) Some candidates justified the number of significant figures they had given for the value of x with
reference to the number of significant figures used in d, D and h. Others referred to two of the raw
values without mentioning the third. Reference to just the ‘raw data’ is not sufficient here and did
not gain credit. A few candidates incorrectly made reference to the number of decimal places. The
justification for one significant figure because n is an integer did not gain credit.

(f) (i) The majority of candidates were able to calculate k for the two sets of data, showing their working
clearly. Many candidates rounded both values to 1 significant figure to compare k values which is
not sufficient. A minority of candidates incorrectly rearranged the equation to calculate k.

Drawing conclusions

(f) (ii) Most candidates calculated the percentage difference between their two values of k, and then
tested it against a specified percentage uncertainty, either taken from (a)(iii) or estimated
themselves. Some candidates gave answers such as ‘the difference in the two k values is very
large/quite small’ which is insufficient to be awarded credit. A numerical percentage comparison is
required.

Estimating uncertainties

(a) (iii) Most candidates were familiar with the equation for calculating percentage uncertainty, though
some made too large an estimate of the absolute uncertainty in the value of h, typically 1 mm when
the vernier scale can be read to the nearest 0.1 mm. The reading is static and straightforward so
the uncertainty will not be as large as 1 mm. Some candidates repeated their readings and
correctly gave the uncertainty in d as half the range. Some other candidates incorrectly used the
range without halving it, or multiplied it by the number of repeat readings.

Evaluation

(f) Many candidates recognised that two sets of data were insufficient to draw a valid conclusion.
Several candidates identified the time being too short so that the experimental uncertainty in the
time measurement is high. Some candidates had difficulty using the correct terminology to explain
that refraction caused difficulty in judging the end point.

Valid improvements included taking more readings and then plotting a suitable graph to test the
suggested relationship. Many improvements could not be credited because they were not specific
enough, e.g. automatic light sensor, pressure sensor or robotic arm release mechanism.

Many candidates suggested the use of ‘better’ equipment or computers/data loggers/sensors

without describing how such equipment would be used. Credit is not given for suggestions of
standard laboratory technique that could be carried out in the original experiment, such as
repeating measurements or avoiding parallax errors in the starting position or measurement of h by
looking at eye level. Vague or generic answers such as ‘systematic error’ or ‘use an assistant’ are
not given credit.

The key to this section is for candidates to identify genuine problems associated with setting up this
experiment and in obtaining readings. Candidates are encouraged to suggest detailed practical
solutions that either improve technique or give more reliable data.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/34
Advanced Practical Skills 2

Key Messages

• Candidates should be reminded that they should always plot all of their tabulated readings on the graph
in Question 1. If some of the readings do not fit on the graph grid, then a different scale should be
chosen.

• Many candidates find it difficult to choose scales that make good use of the graph grid. The aim should
be to occupy the majority of the graph grid. If less than half of the grid is occupied in one direction, the
range of the corresponding axis can be halved to make better use of the grid.

• When deciding whether the relationship in Question 2 is true, candidates should be encouraged to
make a quantitative comparison and then make a precise statement consistent with their comparison. A
vague phrase such as “within experimental accuracy” is not sufficient.

• To score highly on Question 2, candidates should be reminded that their identified limitations and
suggestions for improvement must be focused on the particular experiment being carried out. General
points such as “avoid parallax error” or “use more precise measuring instruments” will not usually gain
credit without further detail. Candidates should be encouraged to write about four different problems and
consequently four different solutions to address these problems, and should not try to state four solutions
to the same problem.

General Comments

There was no evidence that Centres had any difficulties in providing the equipment required for use by the
candidates. A few Centres provided metre rules for Question 1 that were too flexible to oscillate as intended
for larger values of r, and this was taken into account when the scripts from these Centres were marked.
Experiments are designed with the view that Centres will have the apparatus as outlined in the syllabus
available for use. Any help given to a candidate should be noted on the Supervisor’s Report. Supervisors
are reminded that help should not be given with the recording of results, graphical work or analysis.

The general standard of the work done by the candidates was good, with many excellent scripts. Candidates
did not seem to be short of time and both questions were attempted by almost all the candidates. They
demonstrated good skills in the generation and handling of data but could improve by giving more thought to
the analysis and evaluation of experiments.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

In this question, candidates were asked to investigate a metre rule rocking on a beaker.

Successful collection of data

(b) (i) Almost all candidates recorded a value for r in the range 28.0 cm – 32.0 cm. Some candidates lost
credit because they omitted units.

(c) (ii) Most candidates were able to record a time T in the range 2.0 s – 4.0 s and the majority repeated
their measurements, either by recording the time for several oscillations and dividing their answers
by the number of oscillations, or by recording the times for a number of single oscillations and

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
finding the average. Several candidates mis-read the stopwatch, recording times of 0.01 s or less.
Some candidates recorded the time for only half a complete oscillation.

(d) Most candidates were able to collect six sets of values of r and T without any assistance from the
Supervisor. A few candidates lost credit as their results did not show the correct trend (T should
increase as r increases).

Range and distribution of values

(d) Some candidates made good use of the range of possible values of r, ensuring that the difference
between the smallest and largest values was 30 cm or greater, but many candidates needed to
extend the range of values of r chosen to make better use of the apparatus.

Quality of data

(e) (i) Most candidates were awarded credit for the quality of their data. A few candidates obtained an
incorrect (negative) trend on their graph, or had calculated values of T2 rather than T3.

Table

(d) The best candidates made good use of the space available on the paper when drawing their tables,
starting with the independent variable r followed by repeat values of the measured time nT for n
oscillations. The next column would be the average value of T followed by the calculated values r2
and T3 in the last two columns, making the plotting of the graph easier.

Most candidates were awarded credit for using the correct column headings in their tables, giving
both the quantity recorded and suitable units for each quantity, with the two separated by a solidus
or with the units in brackets. Centres should note that a quantity and a unit separated by a comma
is not accepted. Some candidates gave the units for r2 as cm rather than cm2, or the units for T3 as
s rather than s3.

Most candidates recorded their values for r to the nearest 0.1 cm. Others only recorded their
values for r to the nearest cm.

Most candidates recorded their calculated values for T3 to the same number of significant figures as
(or one more than) the number of significant figures for T. Most candidates calculated values for T3
correctly, though a few lost credit because they rounded their answers incorrectly, or added an
extra zero to their value.

Graph

(e) (i) Most candidates gained credit for drawing appropriate axes, with labels and sensible scales. A few
candidates chose extremely awkward scales, making the correct plotting of points much more
difficult. This often also led to the loss of credit for plotting or for incorrect read-offs for the gradient
and intercept because the scale was difficult to use correctly. Some candidates drew non-linear
scales and lost credit for the axes and the quality (which cannot be judged).

Many candidates gained credit for plotting their tabulated readings correctly. If a point seems
anomalous, candidates should repeat the measurement to check that an error in recording the
values has not been made. If such a point is ignored in assessing the line of best fit, the
anomalous point should be labelled clearly, e.g. by circling the point.

Most candidates plotted their points on the graph grid with great care. Others needed to draw the
plotted points so that the diameters of the points were equal to, or less than, half a small square (a
small pencil cross is recommended). Some candidates can improve by plotting the points more
accurately and by ensuring they use a sharp pencil and a straight ruler.

(ii) Some candidates were able to draw carefully considered lines of best fit, but others joined the first
and last points on the graph regardless of the distribution of the other points. There should always
be a balanced distribution of points either side of the line along the entire length. Many lines
needed rotation to get a better fit, or an anomalous point needed to be identified to justify the line
drawn. Some candidates lost credit for lines that were kinked in the middle (candidates used too

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
small a ruler), by drawing a double line (broken pencil tip) or by drawing freehand lines without the
aid of a ruler.

Interpretation of graph

(e) (iii) Many candidates used a suitably large triangle to calculate the gradient, gaining credit for correct
read-offs, and substituted into Δy/Δx to find the gradient. Other candidates needed to check that
the read-offs used were within half a small square of the line of best fit, show clearly the
substitution into Δy/Δx (not Δx/Δy), and check that the triangle for calculating the gradient is large
enough (the hypotenuse should be greater than half the length of the line drawn).

Some candidates correctly read off the y-intercept at x = 0 directly from the graph. Others needed
to check that the x-axis started with x = 0 (i.e. no false origin) for this method of finding the intercept
to be valid.

Many candidates correctly substituted a read-off into y = mx + c to determine the y-intercept.

Others needed to check that the point chosen was actually on the line of best fit and not just a point
from the table.

Drawing conclusions

(f) Most candidates recognised that a was equal to the value of the gradient and b was equal to the
value of the intercept calculated in (e)(iii). A few candidates tried to calculate a and b by first
substituting values into the given equation and then solving the simultaneous equations, or by
repeating the calculations already completed in (e)(iii). No credit is given for this as the question
specifically asks for the answers in (e)(iii) to be used to determine a and b.

The majority of candidates recorded the correct units for a (s3 cm–2 or s3 m–2) and b (s3). Others
omitted the units for a or b.

Question 2

In this question, candidates were required to investigate how the optical properties of a lens depend on its
shape.

Successful collection of data

(a) (ii) Most candidates recorded a value for t in the range 0.10 cm – 0.90 cm successfully, giving their
answers to the nearest 0.01 cm. A few candidates gave their answer to the nearest millimetre, not
taking into account the precision of the vernier callipers, and were not awarded credit.

Almost all candidates recorded a value for D in the range 3.0 cm – 6.0 cm and most recorded a
value for h (the thickness of the lens at the edge) that was less than t (the thickness of the lens at
the centre).

(c) (ii) Candidates generally recorded a value for f that was within the specified range of focal lengths
(either 15.0 ± 2.0 cm or 30.0 ± 2.0 cm). Some Centres used lenses with focal lengths different
from those specified in the Confidential Instructions. This was acceptable but reinforces the
importance of making such changes clear in the Supervisor’s report so that Examiners can make
appropriate adjustments to the mark scheme.

(d) Almost all candidates were able to record second values for t, D and h, and also went on to record
a second value of f.

Quality of data

(e) (i) The values of R and f should be almost exactly the same, so that k = 1. Some candidates obtained
values that were in the range 0.5 – 1.5 and were awarded credit. Others either carried forward an
incorrect value of t or h into the calculation for R, or calculated R incorrectly, or measured f
incorrectly.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Display of calculation and reasoning

(b) Almost all candidates were able to calculate R correctly, but many candidates recorded their value
of R to too great a number of significant figures.

(e) (i) The great majority of candidates were able to calculate k correctly for the two sets of data, showing
their working clearly. A few candidates calculated f / R and were not awarded credit.

Drawing conclusions

(e) (ii) Most candidates calculated the percentage difference between their two values of k, and then
tested it against a specified percentage uncertainty, either taken from (c)(iii) or estimated
themselves (usually 20%). Some candidates gave answers such as ‘the difference in the two k
values is very large/quite small’ which is insufficient to be awarded credit. A numerical percentage
comparison is required.

Estimating uncertainties

(c) (iii) Most candidates were familiar with the equation for calculating percentage uncertainty, though
many made too small an estimate of the absolute uncertainty in the focal length. Such estimates
should take into account the nature of the measurement itself as well as the precision of the
instrument being used.

Evaluation

(f) Many candidates recognised that two sets of data were insufficient to draw a valid conclusion.
Several candidates identified the measurement of h as a possible source of error, but without
explaining why e.g. by stating that h was small so that there was a large uncertainty in its
measurement. Several candidates stated that it was difficult to hold the lens steady in the hand but
they needed to link this explicitly to error in the measurement of the focal length f.

Many candidates correctly identified the difficulty of judging exactly when the image on the screen
was in sharp focus.

Valid improvements included taking more readings (for lenses of different focal lengths) and then
plotting a suitable graph to test the suggested relationship, and using a micrometer screw gauge to
measure h. Many candidates suggested using a dark room (or just turning off the lights) or
mounting the lens in a lens holder to keep it steady. Other good suggestions included using a
more compact source of light such as an LED or using an optical bench.

Many candidates suggested the use of ‘better’ equipment or computers/data loggers/sensors

without describing how such equipment would be used. Credit is not given for suggestions of
standard laboratory technique that could be carried out in the original experiment, such as
repeating measurements or avoiding parallax errors. Vague or generic answers such as
‘systematic error’ or ‘use an assistant’ are not given credit.

The key to this section is for candidates to identify genuine problems associated with setting up this
experiment and in obtaining readings. Candidates are encouraged to suggest detailed practical
solutions that either improve technique or give more reliable data.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/35
Advanced Practical Skills 1

Key Messages

• Candidates should be reminded that they should always plot all of their tabulated readings on the graph
in Question 1. If some of the readings do not fit on the graph grid, then a different scale should be
chosen.

• Many candidates find it difficult to choose scales that make good use of the graph grid. The aim should
be to occupy the majority of the graph grid. If less than half of the grid is occupied in one direction, the
range of the corresponding axis can be halved to make better use of the grid.

• When deciding whether the relationship in Question 2 is true, candidates should be encouraged to
make a quantitative comparison and then make a precise statement consistent with their comparison. A
vague phrase such as “within experimental accuracy” is not sufficient.

• To score highly on Question 2, candidates should be reminded that their identified limitations and
suggestions for improvement must be focused on the particular experiment being carried out. General
points such as “avoid parallax error” or “use more precise measuring instruments” will not usually gain
credit without further detail. Candidates should be encouraged to write about four different problems and
consequently four different solutions to address these problems, and should not try to state four solutions
to the same problem.

General Comments

Centres generally did not have any difficulties in providing the equipment required for use by the candidates.
Any deviation between the requested equipment and that provided to the candidates should be written down
in the Supervisor’s Report, and this report must be sent with the scripts to Cambridge so that the Examiners
can take this into consideration when marking. Experiments are designed with the view that Centres will
have the apparatus as outlined in the syllabus available for use. Any help given to a candidate should be
noted on the Supervisor’s Report. Supervisors are reminded that help should not be given with the
recording of results, graphical work or analysis.

The general standard of the work done by the candidates was good, with many excellent scripts. Candidates
did not seem to be short of time and both questions were attempted by almost all the candidates. They
demonstrated good skills in the generation and handling of data but can improve by giving more thought to
the analysis and evaluation of the experiments.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

In this question, candidates were asked to investigate how the voltage across components in a circuit varies
as the resistance of the circuit is changed.

Successful collection of data

(a) (ii) The majority of candidates stated a value of x to the nearest millimetre with a correct unit. Some
candidates omitted the unit.

(b) (ii) Most candidates stated values of V1 and V2 in range with a unit. Some candidates omitted the unit
and some others included an inappropriate unit, e.g. 150 V instead of 150 mV.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) Most candidates were able to collect six sets of values of x, V1 and V2 without any assistance from
the Supervisor. If candidates choose to record more than the prescribed six sets of values, it is
important that all the extra points are plotted on the graph.

Range and distribution of values

(c) Many candidates did not extend their range of x values over at least 60.0 cm. Many candidates
took six readings sequentially in 10.0 cm steps from 10.0 cm to 60.0 cm and did not gain credit for
their range of readings.

Quality of data

(d) (i) Most candidates were awarded credit for the quality of their data. Those candidates who did not
gain credit often rounded their calculated values to too few significant figures, which increased the
scatter on the graph.

Table

(c) Most candidates were awarded credit for using the correct column headings in their tables, giving
both the quantity recorded and suitable units for each quantity, with the two separated by a solidus,
or the units in brackets. Many candidates correctly gave no units for V2 / V1. Some other
candidates stated V2/V1 / V/V. This did not gain credit as the unit at the top of the column should
reflect the unit of the combined quantity V2/V1.

Many candidates recorded their raw values for V to the nearest 0.001 V, gaining credit. Some
candidates incorrectly stated their V values to the nearest 0.01 V or presented trailing zeros to a
greater precision than 0.001 V when the voltmeter can read to the nearest 0.001 V.

Many candidates calculated values for V2/V1 correctly, though a few rounded their answers
incorrectly.

Some candidates recorded their calculated values for V2/V1 to an appropriate number of significant
figures. Some candidates recorded their values to an inflated number of significant figures. It is
expected that candidates record their calculated values to either the same number as, or one more
than, the least number of significant figures used in the raw readings of V2 and V1.

Graph

(d) (i) The size of the graph axes chosen was generally good so that the plotted points occupied greater
than half the graph grid available. Many candidates drew awkward scales on the y-axis (commonly
multiples of three) and could not be awarded credit for the axes. This often also led to the loss of
credit for plotting or for incorrect read-offs for the gradient and intercept because the scale was
difficult to use correctly. Some candidates incorrectly placed their top point on the top line and their
bottom point on the bottom line and divided the scale accordingly, which gave a very awkward
scale.

Many candidates gained credit for plotting their tabulated readings correctly. Some candidates
plotted V1/V2 against x which was not required. If a point seems anomalous, candidates should
repeat the measurement to check that an error in recording the values has not been made. If such
a point is ignored in assessing the line of best fit, the anomalous point should be labelled clearly,
e.g. by circling the point.

Most candidates plotted their points on the graph grid with great care. Others needed to draw the
plotted points so that the diameters of the points were equal to, or less than, half a small square (a
small pencil cross is recommended). Some candidates can improve by plotting the points more
accurately and by ensuring they use a sharp pencil and a straight ruler.

(ii) Some candidates were able to draw carefully considered lines of best fit, but others joined the first
and last points on the graph regardless of the distribution of the other points. There should always
be a balanced distribution of points either side of the line along the entire length. Many lines
needed rotation to get a better fit, or an anomalous point needed to be identified to justify the line
drawn. Some candidates lost credit for lines that were kinked in the middle (candidates used too

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
small a ruler), by drawing a double line (broken pencil tip) or by drawing freehand lines without the
aid of a ruler.

Interpretation of graph

(d) (iii) Many candidates used a suitably large triangle to calculate the gradient, gaining credit for correct
read-offs, and substituted into Δy/Δx to find the gradient. Other candidates needed to check that
the read-offs used were within half a small square of the line of best fit, show clearly the
substitution into Δy/Δx (not Δx/Δy), and check that the triangle for calculating the gradient is large
enough (the hypotenuse should be greater than half the length of the line drawn).

Many candidates were able to correctly read off the y-intercept at x = 0 directly from the graph.

Many candidates correctly substituted a read-off into y = mx + c to determine the y-intercept.

Others needed to check that the point chosen was actually on the line of best fit and not just a point
from the table.

Drawing conclusions

(e) Many candidates recognised that A was equal to 15 × gradient and B was equal to 10 / intercept
from (d)(iii). A few candidates tried to calculate A and B by first substituting values into the given
equation and then solving the simultaneous equations, or by repeating the calculations already
completed in (d)(iii). No credit is given for this as the question specifically asks for the answers in
(d)(iii) to be used to determine A and B.

Many candidates recorded the correct units for A (Ω m–1) and B (Ω) correctly. Others stated
incorrect units e.g. B in Ω m or omitted the units for A and B.

Question 2

In this question, candidates were required to investigate the motion of a metal bar.

Successful collection of data

(c) (i) Many candidates correctly recorded a value for θ to the nearest degree. Some candidates added
trailing zeros. This precision is not justified because a protractor can only be read to a precision of
one degree.

(d) (ii) Many candidates recorded and repeated values of T1 in range and with a consistent unit. Some of
the candidates misread the stopwatch and stated (e.g.) 80 s or 0.0080 s, which are out of range.
Other candidates did not repeat their readings either here or in (f)(ii), or omitted units.

(e) (ii) Most candidates recorded a value for T2 in range and with a unit.

(f) (ii) Most candidates recorded second values for θ, T1 and T2.

Quality of data

(f) (ii) Many candidates recorded larger values for T1 and smaller values for T2 when the loops of string
were closer together.

Display of calculation and reasoning

(c) (iii) Many candidates correctly calculated cos(θ / 2).

(g) (i) The majority of candidates were able to calculate k for the two sets of data, showing their working
clearly. Some candidates rounded one or both values of k to just one significant figure which is not
sufficient. A minority of candidates incorrectly rearranged the equation to calculate k.

(ii) Some candidates justified the number of significant figures they had given for the values of k,
giving reference to the number of significant figures used in T1, T2 and θ. Others gave reference to
two of the raw values without mentioning the third. Many candidates referred incorrectly to the

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

number of significant figures used in cos(θ / 2) rather than the number used in θ. Reference to just
the ‘raw data’ is not sufficient. A few candidates incorrectly made reference to the number of
decimal places.

Drawing conclusions

(g) (iii) Most candidates calculated the percentage difference between their two values of k, and then
tested it against a specified percentage uncertainty, either taken from (c)(ii) or estimated
themselves. Some candidates gave answers such as ‘the difference in the two k values is very
large/quite small’ which is insufficient to be awarded credit. A numerical percentage comparison is
required.

Estimating uncertainties

(c) (ii) Most candidates were familiar with the equation for calculating percentage uncertainty. Some
candidates made too small an estimate of the absolute uncertainty in the value of θ, typically using
1°. This is insufficient as, although the protractor can be read to the nearest 1°, the reading is
difficult and awkward to take as the rod is in the way. Some candidates repeated their readings
and correctly gave the uncertainty in θ as half the range. Some other candidates incorrectly used
the full range without halving it.

Evaluation

(h) Many candidates recognised that two sets of data were insufficient to draw a valid conclusion.
Many candidates identified the angle as difficult to measure as the rod is in the way or the
protractor is hand-held and so is not steady.

Valid improvements included taking more readings and then plotting a suitable graph to test the
suggested relationship. Some improvements were not specific enough, e.g. use of a video without
specifying the need to use a timer.

The key to this section is for candidates to identify genuine problems associated with setting up this
experiment and in obtaining readings. For example, it was difficult to take the time as the
oscillations were too few as they were damped after just a few oscillations. Candidates are
encouraged to suggest detailed practical solutions that either improve technique or give more
reliable data.

Many candidates suggested the use of ‘better’ equipment or computers/data loggers/sensors

without describing how such equipment would be used. Credit is not given for suggestions of
standard laboratory technique that could be carried out in the original experiment, such as
repeating measurements or avoiding parallax errors. Vague or generic answers such as
‘systematic error’ or ‘use an assistant’ are not given credit.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/41
A2 Structured Questions

Key Messages

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

• Candidates are advised that they should show their working, including relevant explanation. It is
particularly important to include words of explanation when the question contains the command word
“show”. The meaning of any symbols used should be stated.

• A key area for learning is to understand the underlying concepts behind the areas of physics tested on
this paper. Questions with the command word “explain” require a detailed response that uses this
underlying knowledge of physics. To be awarded full credit in these questions, a statement without
explanation is not sufficient.

General Comments

The majority of candidates attempted parts of the whole examination paper showing they had sufficient time
to complete their answers. Many candidates’ responses showed that they would benefit from further
preparation for Section B. Some papers had significant omissions in the final four questions.

Candidates also found Question 7 to be particularly difficult, and would benefit from further work on the
principles and advantages of a.c. electrical distribution at high voltages.

It was noted that candidates found it difficult to state laws and quote definitions accurately. Some definitions
were muddled with that for a different quantity, and some responses missed out key terms.

Comments on Specific Questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) This law was stated well but many candidates did not refer to point masses.

(b) The most common omission was the idea that the gravitational force provides the centripetal force.
Weaker candidates just rearranged the expression given and a number of candidates lost credit
because they did not use the symbols provided. Another common error was to start at GMN/r = v2
rather than first principles.

(c) The ratio of the two masses could be found relatively easily using the given equation, but instead
many candidates worked out the masses of the planets. This was difficult as it required a lot of
conversion from days to seconds and km to m. Non-SI values of mass were acceptable provided
the candidate did not mistakenly label these as “kg”. Candidates should be reminded that a ratio
should always be given as a decimal number, not a fraction.

Question 2

(a) The most common mistake was to forget to mention atoms/molecules/particles of a system.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) This was generally well calculated, but some candidates lost credit by rounding to 1 s.f. A small
number of candidates used the change in pressure and temperature to correctly calculate the
correct value. A smaller number spoiled their work by mistakenly using the difference in volume
from C to A.

(ii) There were few problems here. Some candidates misread the scale on the graph.

(c) Few candidates correctly linked the change in volume to work done and the change in temperature
to internal energy. Some candidates who considered the work done thought that the temperature
would be increasing. The key point to realise was that work was done on the gas and it was
cooling.

Question 3

(a) This definition was found to be quite difficult by a considerable number of candidates. Many
candidates wrote about the energy needed to change 1 kg of a substance, which is mixing
quantities and units. It is essential that candidates realise that they must use “unit mass” in their
definitions. Also, the word “specific” is important: they must refer to unit mass, rather than just the
energy needed to convert a substance from one state to another.

(b) (i) This was well done, but some candidates only divided by 5 or 60, not both. Some weak candidates
multiplied and this did not give a sensible answer.

(ii) Many candidates used just one set of data to calculate L and ignored the energy gains from the
surroundings. Some did use the second set as well and then averaged the two values. These
approaches are not correct. Stronger candidates were able to use the difference in powers and the
differences in masses to get the correct value for the latent heat, but their approach to part 2 often
showed that they did not understand how their method worked, as they were not able to find the
rate of thermal energy gained from the surroundings.

Question 4

(a) (i) The idea of a driving oscillator was well understood but it was less often coupled to the fact that it
would produce a frequency in the driven system.

(ii) When this was answered correctly, it was most often in terms of there being no external force
acting.

(iii) This part of the question was often answered correctly. The idea of forced frequency being equal
to natural frequency was well understood. Fewer candidates made the link to maximum amplitude.

(b) This is an example of a “state and explain” question. It was essential that the object vibrating was
mentioned. Those who did this often then found it difficult to identify exactly why resonance was
useful in that case. For example “microwave ovens” are not an example of resonance as there is
no statement of what is resonating. The second mark was given for showing why this was useful.

(c) As in (b), “bridges” (for example) are not an example of a situation where resonance should be
avoided. “The vibration of bridges” is a better answer. The second mark was given for how to
reduce the effect of resonance. Cars going over a bump in the road are not an example of
resonance, as there is no forcing frequency.

Question 5

(a) There were many answers which stated that field strength is V/d without further comment. A few
candidates gave correct expressions for V and E leading to this, and so gained the mark. Slightly
more candidates mentioned that field strength was the gradient of the graph.

The calculation was much more successful. A small number of candidates did not include correct
powers of ten for either or (more rarely) both quantities. Of those who used the gradient method, a
significant number of results lay beyond the allowed range because the gradient had not been
determined carefully.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) There were many correct answers here.

(ii) Most candidates were successful here, but some weaker candidates did not correctly recall the
formula for capacitance.

Question 6

(a) Many candidates responded with only one force for each situation. Candidates need to realise that
a particle will have mass.

(b) Very few candidates determined the correct direction of the magnetic field. The calculation part of
this question proved relatively straightforward.

(c) Very few candidates realised that the particle would be undergoing circular motion with a smaller
radius of curvature. Candidates should be encouraged to take care with the drawing of diagrams.

Question 7

(a) The most common answer was the fact that the voltage can be changed “easily”, rather than
efficiently.

(b) The idea of current being smaller was well understood, but many candidates did not also say that
this could occur while the power transmitted remains the same. Likewise, the idea of power loss
being smaller, or less heating occurring, was also popular but very few candidates related this to
the cables or wires.

Question 8

(a) (i) Candidates who realised that the de Broglie equation was required then carried out the calculation
with few problems. Some others attempted to use momentum = mv and used the mass of the
electron. This could not be awarded credit. A tiny minority used the wrong wavelength.

(ii) Candidates who knew and used the correct expression answered this question well. Again, the
mass of the electron appeared for those candidates who used the kinetic energy formula, and this
could not be awarded credit.

(b) (i) Most candidates were able to use the formula provided. Some candidates substituted one
wavelength instead of the change and some were unable to carry out the manipulation correctly to
lead to the angle after the substitution.

(ii) This was a challenging question. If the collision is elastic and the photon has lost energy (because
its wavelength has increased) then it must have given that energy to the electron. Very few
candidates realised this. Some weaker candidates were unable to link the longer wavelength with
a reduction in photon energy.

Question 9

(a) Radioactive decay is a nuclear process. A significant number of candidates did not make any
reference to nuclei in their answers.

(b) Although many candidates received partial credit, many did not demonstrate a complete
understanding of what happens when a radioisotope decays. A large number of candidates did not
confine themselves to the symbols given and used a variety of others, which were often not
defined.

(c) Stronger candidates were able to draw a reasonably convincing smooth curve hitting the
appropriate points with sufficient accuracy. There were some straight lines and a larger number of
curves with the wrong shape. A small number simply copied the curve given.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Question 10

(a) (i) Many candidates obtained the correct answer.

(ii) Many candidates did not understand what was happening in terms of comparing the inputs of this
circuit. A common mistake was to confuse the output voltage from the amplifier with VOUT, which
were two different quantities in this circuit. The function of the diode was not well understood.

(b) (i) The output of this circuit being a square wave was well understood by some candidates. However
a large number drew waves that just replicated the input voltage given.

(ii) Very few candidates were able to suggest an appropriate use for the circuit.

Question 11

(a) The key word in this question is “tube”. Although candidates did give ways for the hardness of the
beam to be controlled, they often did not explain this in terms of the anode voltage. Many of those
who mentioned the anode voltage did not go on to explain how changing the anode voltage
changed the hardness of the beam.

(b) (i) Most candidates were correct.

(ii) Few candidates included enough detail to be awarded full credit. Some candidates recognised that
the two absorption coefficients were very similar, but were unable to take this any further. Other
candidates thought that this was a big difference and that the blood would absorb all the X-rays,
leaving none to be absorbed by the muscle.

Question 12

(a) There were some candidates who confused the words “information” and “device” and talked about
antennae as receivers of information via a coaxial cable, for example, instead of the device that
was receiving the information, such as a television.

(b) There were many correct responses to this question. A small number of candidates thought that
information would travel faster, and some talked in terms of absolutes such as “no noise” or “no
possibility of intercepting information”. Common correct answers involved references to bandwidth,
noise and attenuation.

(c) This was a difficult question and there were few correct answers. Candidates need to understand
the idea of different areas of attenuation and apply them accurately if they wish to gain credit for
this type of question.

Question 13

(a) This question proved to be very challenging and there were few correct answers. The two
magnetic fields have distinct purposes and many candidates confused them in their answers.

(b) Many candidates carried out a successful calculation here. A small number of candidates rounded
to 1.0 and some to 1. A minority confused frequency with energy and a smaller number rearranged
the equation incorrectly.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/42
A2 Structured Questions

Key Messages

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

• Candidates are advised that they should show their working, including relevant explanation. It is
particularly important to include words of explanation when the question contains the command word
“show”. The meaning of any symbols used should be stated.

• A key area for learning is to understand the underlying concepts behind the areas of physics tested on
this paper. Questions with the command word “explain” require a detailed response that uses this
underlying knowledge of physics. To be awarded full credit in these questions, a statement without
explanation is not sufficient.

General Comments

Some candidates did not answer all parts of all questions. There was no evidence of a shortage of time for
candidates to complete their answers.

Candidates should take particular care to check that their numerical answers are of a sensible order of
magnitude. A gravitational force of several meganewton on the 2.5 kg mass in Question 1(a)(i)1., for
example, could be recognised as implausible. This would help the candidate to realise that an error has
been made, which could then be investigated further.

Comments on Specific Questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) (i) 1. Generally, the correct expression was given. Frequently, the power-of-two for the radius was
omitted, despite being correct in the general expression. Some candidates did not correctly
convert from kilometres to metres.

2. A correct expression was seen in most scripts. Many candidates made errors similar to those in
part 1.

(ii) The majority of candidates realised that the reading on the newton-meter would be the difference
between the two answers in (a)(i). A significant number either gave the answer calculated in part 1
or calculated 2.50 g.

(b) There were very few correct responses except from the strongest candidates. Many candidates
did not consider centripetal force and did not make any connection with the reasoning used in (a).
The majority of answers were based on either negligible gravitational force or the influence of other
stars and planets.

Question 2

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(a) This question was generally answered well.

(b) A common error was to calculate the square of the answer obtained in (a). Some candidates made
arithmetical errors or used an inappropriate number of significant figures.

(c) Many candidates did not understand the significance of this term in the context of kinetic theory.
Division of the answer in (b) by √2 was a frequent mistake.

Question 3

(a) The definition was often given in terms of either “a substance” or “matter” or “a kilogram” rather
than the energy required per/for unit mass. The condition that there must be constant temperature
should be included.

(b) (i) This question was generally answered correctly but some discussed mass per unit time being
constant, without any reference to the graph.

(ii) A correct expression linking specific latent heat to power was quoted in most scripts. In many
answers, a single point on the line was used, rather than the gradient. Power-of-ten errors were
common.

(iii) There were many correct answers based on “heat lost to the surroundings”. Others made
inappropriate reference to heat gained by the beaker or the apparatus. These items would remain
at constant temperature.

Question 4

(a) This was generally answered correctly.

(b) (i) Candidates found this difficult and the correct phase angle was given in very few scripts.

(ii) In general, the relevant equation was known. Often, when substituting for angular frequency, ω
was not squared in the calculation. Power-of-ten errors were common.

(iii) Many candidates were unable to link maximum kinetic energy to the data provided. Others gave
different time periods for the two oscillations.

(c) Most candidates were able to draw a straight line with negative gradient through the origin. Some
did not use data from (b) in order to fix the end-points of the line.

Question 5

(a) Many answers were incomplete as they did not specify unit positive charge being moved from
infinity.

(b) (i) In general, this question was answered correctly in terms of the gradient of the line. Candidates
should be advised that the expression E = V/x is applicable only to uniform fields (and in this case
V and x are not the co-ordinates of a point).

(ii) Many answers lacked sufficient detail, and contained only statements that the force decreases and
then increases. It was expected that reference would be made to maximum force at x = 0,
reducing to zero force at x = 6 cm and then increasing, but in the opposite direction. Some
candidates stated that force would be proportional to the potential at a point.

(c) (i) This question was generally answered correctly.

(ii) 1. There were very few incorrect readings.

2. This question asked for an explanation. As a minimum, a recognisable equation indicating the
energy changes and with standard symbols was expected. There were many correct solutions, but
a significant number of these did not have an explanation. There was some confusion as to the

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

use of specific charge, usually amongst those candidates who had not provided an initial equation
as explanation.

Question 6

(a) Most answers were correct.

(b) (i) Many candidates found it difficult to show the correct direction.

(ii) 1. This calculation was generally carried out correctly.

2. Many candidates did not calculate the energy change of the photon but instead used the initial
photon energy. Others considered the electron to be a photon and used an incorrect expression
for kinetic energy.

(c) There were very few candidates who considered momentum in their answers. Many attempted to
give an explanation in terms of loss of energy, despite the statement that the collision is elastic.

Question 7

(a) Many answers contained a statement of the laws of electromagnetic induction but with very little
application to this specific situation. Most explained the production of an induced e.m.f., but few
described this as being in the solenoid. Candidates found it difficult to explain the need to do work
to move the magnet, and the reason for this.

(b) A significant number of candidates stated that the current in the primary coil would give rise to a
flux in the core. Only the strongest candidates were then able to go on to state why an e.m.f. is
induced in the secondary coil, regardless of any phase angle.

Question 8

(a) (i) Most candidates showed a correct conversion but a significant minority confused eV either with
keV or with MeV.

(ii) Many answers were correct but a significant number of candidates did not take into consideration
the efficiency of the process.

(b) (i) There was some confusion as to the number of days in 1.0 years. This is usually accepted to be
365 (to 3 significant figures). Some candidates used 360 days, perhaps because of confusion with
angular degrees.

(ii) This calculation was found to be difficult. Using the decay constant in (b)(i) and the activity from
(a)(ii), it was expected that the number of nuclei would be calculated and hence the mass. Many
candidates used the activity in (a)(ii) as the number of nuclei.

(c) Very few candidates related the initial and final powers to the equation for the exponential decay of
a radioactive source. A large number of candidates attempted to answer this question using a
linear relationship.

Section B

Question 9

(a) Stronger candidates were able to use the potential divider equation to find the potentials at A and
at B. Many candidates attempted to determine a combined resistance and currents in various
combinations of resistors.

(b) (i) Candidates found it difficult to complete the diagram for the inverting amplifier. In those circuits that
were correct, the positive terminal of the voltmeter was usually shown correctly.

(ii) Many candidates did not make it clear that the ratio of the feedback resistance to the input
resistance is 40.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 10

(a) In general, this definition was stated correctly. Some referred to “speed” without making it clear to
what the speed refers. A very small number of candidates gave the speed as the speed of light.

(b) (i) There were many correct answers. Some did not correctly convert the wavelength to the unit of
mm.

(ii) The calculations of the ratio were frequently not identified in terms of the media involved. This
meant that any subsequent comment had little meaning. Frequently, the explanation was given in
very loose terms, such as “the waves can get through”, rather than discussing the intensities of the
transmitted and reflected beams. A significant minority did not carry out any calculation.

Question 11

(a) (i) A significant minority suggested that component A would be an insulator, rather than a metal.

(ii) There were many correct suggestions. Candidates should carefully distinguish between the
reduction and the prevention of factors such as noise.

(b) (i) The great majority gave a correct response. Some referred loosely to either strength or signal
when a more precise word should be used.

(ii) Generally, candidates did not appreciate that the purpose of the log scale is to compress a large
range of values into a more manageable scale.

(c) Very few candidates included a negative sign in order to account for an attenuation. Some showed
clearly that the reciprocal of the gain was required and thus obtained the correct answer. Others
effectively determined an attenuation greater than unity but did not notice that this was unrealistic.
Candidates should be encouraged to carry out a check on their answers, which may help identify
problems in the working.

Question 12

In general, this question was answered well by those candidates who had prepared themselves for topics
included in Section B of the syllabus.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/43
A2 Structured Questions

Key Messages

• Some candidates quote formulae without giving a subject. It is not always possible for the Examiner to
know what is intended by the candidate, especially when subsequent working is not wholly correct, and
as a result it may not be possible to award credit. Candidates should be encouraged to show clearly the
subject of all formulae used.

• Candidates are advised that they should show their working, including relevant explanation. It is
particularly important to include words of explanation when the question contains the command word
“show”. The meaning of any symbols used should be stated.

• A key area for learning is to understand the underlying concepts behind the areas of physics tested on
this paper. Questions with the command word “explain” require a detailed response that uses this
underlying knowledge of physics. To be awarded full credit in these questions, a statement without
explanation is not sufficient.

General Comments

The majority of candidates attempted parts of the whole examination paper showing they had sufficient time
to complete their answers. Many candidates’ responses showed that they would benefit from further
preparation for Section B. Some papers had significant omissions in the final four questions.

Candidates also found Question 7 to be particularly difficult, and would benefit from further work on the
principles and advantages of a.c. electrical distribution at high voltages.

It was noted that candidates found it difficult to state laws and quote definitions accurately. Some definitions
were muddled with that for a different quantity, and some responses missed out key terms.

Comments on Specific Questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) This law was stated well but many candidates did not refer to point masses.

(b) The most common omission was the idea that the gravitational force provides the centripetal force.
Weaker candidates just rearranged the expression given and a number of candidates lost credit
because they did not use the symbols provided. Another common error was to start at GMN/r = v2
rather than first principles.

(c) The ratio of the two masses could be found relatively easily using the given equation, but instead
many candidates worked out the masses of the planets. This was difficult as it required a lot of
conversion from days to seconds and km to m. Non-SI values of mass were acceptable provided
the candidate did not mistakenly label these as “kg”. Candidates should be reminded that a ratio
should always be given as a decimal number, not a fraction.

Question 2

(a) The most common mistake was to forget to mention atoms/molecules/particles of a system.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) This was generally well calculated, but some candidates lost credit by rounding to 1 s.f. A small
number of candidates used the change in pressure and temperature to correctly calculate the
correct value. A smaller number spoiled their work by mistakenly using the difference in volume
from C to A.

(ii) There were few problems here. Some candidates misread the scale on the graph.

(c) Few candidates correctly linked the change in volume to work done and the change in temperature
to internal energy. Some candidates who considered the work done thought that the temperature
would be increasing. The key point to realise was that work was done on the gas and it was
cooling.

Question 3

(a) This definition was found to be quite difficult by a considerable number of candidates. Many
candidates wrote about the energy needed to change 1 kg of a substance, which is mixing
quantities and units. It is essential that candidates realise that they must use “unit mass” in their
definitions. Also, the word “specific” is important: they must refer to unit mass, rather than just the
energy needed to convert a substance from one state to another.

(b) (i) This was well done, but some candidates only divided by 5 or 60, not both. Some weak candidates
multiplied and this did not give a sensible answer.

(ii) Many candidates used just one set of data to calculate L and ignored the energy gains from the
surroundings. Some did use the second set as well and then averaged the two values. These
approaches are not correct. Stronger candidates were able to use the difference in powers and the
differences in masses to get the correct value for the latent heat, but their approach to part 2 often
showed that they did not understand how their method worked, as they were not able to find the
rate of thermal energy gained from the surroundings.

Question 4

(a) (i) The idea of a driving oscillator was well understood but it was less often coupled to the fact that it
would produce a frequency in the driven system.

(ii) When this was answered correctly, it was most often in terms of there being no external force
acting.

(iii) This part of the question was often answered correctly. The idea of forced frequency being equal
to natural frequency was well understood. Fewer candidates made the link to maximum amplitude.

(b) This is an example of a “state and explain” question. It was essential that the object vibrating was
mentioned. Those who did this often then found it difficult to identify exactly why resonance was
useful in that case. For example “microwave ovens” are not an example of resonance as there is
no statement of what is resonating. The second mark was given for showing why this was useful.

(c) As in (b), “bridges” (for example) are not an example of a situation where resonance should be
avoided. “The vibration of bridges” is a better answer. The second mark was given for how to
reduce the effect of resonance. Cars going over a bump in the road are not an example of
resonance, as there is no forcing frequency.

Question 5

(a) There were many answers which stated that field strength is V/d without further comment. A few
candidates gave correct expressions for V and E leading to this, and so gained the mark. Slightly
more candidates mentioned that field strength was the gradient of the graph.

The calculation was much more successful. A small number of candidates did not include correct
powers of ten for either or (more rarely) both quantities. Of those who used the gradient method, a
significant number of results lay beyond the allowed range because the gradient had not been
determined carefully.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) There were many correct answers here.

(ii) Most candidates were successful here, but some weaker candidates did not correctly recall the
formula for capacitance.

Question 6

(a) Many candidates responded with only one force for each situation. Candidates need to realise that
a particle will have mass.

(b) Very few candidates determined the correct direction of the magnetic field. The calculation part of
this question proved relatively straightforward.

(c) Very few candidates realised that the particle would be undergoing circular motion with a smaller
radius of curvature. Candidates should be encouraged to take care with the drawing of diagrams.

Question 7

(a) The most common answer was the fact that the voltage can be changed “easily”, rather than
efficiently.

(b) The idea of current being smaller was well understood, but many candidates did not also say that
this could occur while the power transmitted remains the same. Likewise, the idea of power loss
being smaller, or less heating occurring, was also popular but very few candidates related this to
the cables or wires.

Question 8

(a) (i) Candidates who realised that the de Broglie equation was required then carried out the calculation
with few problems. Some others attempted to use momentum = mv and used the mass of the
electron. This could not be awarded credit. A tiny minority used the wrong wavelength.

(ii) Candidates who knew and used the correct expression answered this question well. Again, the
mass of the electron appeared for those candidates who used the kinetic energy formula, and this
could not be awarded credit.

(b) (i) Most candidates were able to use the formula provided. Some candidates substituted one
wavelength instead of the change and some were unable to carry out the manipulation correctly to
lead to the angle after the substitution.

(ii) This was a challenging question. If the collision is elastic and the photon has lost energy (because
its wavelength has increased) then it must have given that energy to the electron. Very few
candidates realised this. Some weaker candidates were unable to link the longer wavelength with
a reduction in photon energy.

Question 9

(a) Radioactive decay is a nuclear process. A significant number of candidates did not make any
reference to nuclei in their answers.

(b) Although many candidates received partial credit, many did not demonstrate a complete
understanding of what happens when a radioisotope decays. A large number of candidates did not
confine themselves to the symbols given and used a variety of others, which were often not
defined.

(c) Stronger candidates were able to draw a reasonably convincing smooth curve hitting the
appropriate points with sufficient accuracy. There were some straight lines and a larger number of
curves with the wrong shape. A small number simply copied the curve given.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Question 10

(a) (i) Many candidates obtained the correct answer.

(ii) Many candidates did not understand what was happening in terms of comparing the inputs of this
circuit. A common mistake was to confuse the output voltage from the amplifier with VOUT, which
were two different quantities in this circuit. The function of the diode was not well understood.

(b) (i) The output of this circuit being a square wave was well understood by some candidates. However
a large number drew waves that just replicated the input voltage given.

(ii) Very few candidates were able to suggest an appropriate use for the circuit.

Question 11

(a) The key word in this question is “tube”. Although candidates did give ways for the hardness of the
beam to be controlled, they often did not explain this in terms of the anode voltage. Many of those
who mentioned the anode voltage did not go on to explain how changing the anode voltage
changed the hardness of the beam.

(b) (i) Most candidates were correct.

(ii) Few candidates included enough detail to be awarded full credit. Some candidates recognised that
the two absorption coefficients were very similar, but were unable to take this any further. Other
candidates thought that this was a big difference and that the blood would absorb all the X-rays,
leaving none to be absorbed by the muscle.

Question 12

(a) There were some candidates who confused the words “information” and “device” and talked about
antennae as receivers of information via a coaxial cable, for example, instead of the device that
was receiving the information, such as a television.

(b) There were many correct responses to this question. A small number of candidates thought that
information would travel faster, and some talked in terms of absolutes such as “no noise” or “no
possibility of intercepting information”. Common correct answers involved references to bandwidth,
noise and attenuation.

(c) This was a difficult question and there were few correct answers. Candidates need to understand
the idea of different areas of attenuation and apply them accurately if they wish to gain credit for
this type of question.

Question 13

(a) This question proved to be very challenging and there were few correct answers. The two
magnetic fields have distinct purposes and many candidates confused them in their answers.

(b) Many candidates carried out a successful calculation here. A small number of candidates rounded
to 1.0 and some to 1. A minority confused frequency with energy and a smaller number rearranged
the equation incorrectly.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/51
Planning, Analysis and Evaluation

Key Messages

• In Question 1, candidates’ responses should include detailed explanations of experimental procedures.

• Graphical work should be carefully attempted and checked. Candidates should use a sharp pencil when
plotting data points and use a transparent 30 cm ruler when drawing the line of best fit and the worst
acceptable line; care is also needed when reading information from the graph.

• The numerical answers towards the end of Question 2 require candidates to show all their working,
particularly when determining both percentage and absolute uncertainties.

• The practical skills required for this paper should be developed and practised over a period of time with a
‘hands-on’ approach.

General Comments

Candidates were able to access all parts of the paper and there was no evidence that the paper could not be
completed in the time available.

Question 1 was an unfamiliar laboratory experiment. Candidates were required to plan an experiment using
a vibrator at a given potential difference to determine the maximum frequency of an oscillating metal plate at
which a small mass remains in contact with the plate. Many candidates describing the method should have
included more detail. Diagrams can be improved, particularly in the drawing of workable electrical circuits.
The graphical analysis was generally understood and done well. Many candidates did not provide enough
additional detail to receive credit; for example, many candidates could not describe the use of an
oscilloscope to measure frequency.

Question 2 required the candidates to plot a log–log graph. Many candidates made rounding errors in the
table of results and/or quoted values of log P to too few decimal places. The plotting of points and error bars
and the drawing of straight lines were generally done well. The reading of co-ordinates for the calculation of
the gradient and calculation of the intercept was also generally good. Some errors were made in the
analysis part at the end of the question.

It is clear that the stronger candidates have experienced a practical course where the skills required for this
paper are developed and practised over a period of time with a ‘hands-on’ approach. To assist Centres,
Cambridge have produced practical support booklets which are available from the Teacher Support Site.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

Candidates were required to plan an experiment using a vibrator at a given potential difference to determine
the maximum frequency of an oscillating metal plate at which a small mass remains in contact with the plate.
Candidates also needed to explain how to obtain an expression for the constant k – this should be explained
using graphical analysis.

Most candidates correctly identified the independent and dependent variables. Many candidates did not
receive further credit for defining the experiment. Candidates needed to explain that they would adjust the
frequency until the small mass just left the plate for a given alternating potential difference or, alternatively,

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

candidates needed to explain that they would adjust the alternating potential difference until the small mass
just left the plate for a given frequency.

Further credit is then available for controlling variables: candidates should indicate how a fair test could be
carried out by keeping appropriate variables constant. Candidates should explicitly identify the variables that
need to be kept constant; “controlled” is not an acceptable alternative to the word “constant”. Examiners
were expecting a reference to be made to keeping the position of the mass constant.

Five marks are available for methods of data collection. Candidates were expected to draw a labelled
diagram for this investigation which needed to include a vibrator connected with two leads to a signal
generator. Labelled diagrams should be realistic in showing the laboratory setup. It was also expected that
there would be a voltmeter or cathode-ray oscilloscope correctly positioned to determine the alternating
potential difference. The circuit must be workable. In any electric circuit, voltmeters and cathode-ray
oscilloscopes must be connected in parallel with the component across which the potential difference is to be
measured.

A mark was available for measuring the frequency from the cathode-ray oscilloscope or signal generator.
There were two additional detail marks available for explaining how to determine the period from a cathode-
ray oscilloscope and hence the frequency. Using a stop watch to time oscillations was not a suitable method
and was not awarded credit.

Candidates were then expected to explain how they would determine when the small mass left the plate.
Vague methods using cameras and videos were not credited.

The majority of candidates understood which graph to plot, although a significant number of candidates
incorrectly suggested plotting a graph of f against V. A small number of candidates received credit for
relating the value for k to the gradient. For the mark to be awarded, k was expected to be subject of the
formula. There was an additional detail mark available for stating the condition that the graph would be a
straight line passing through the origin if the relationship was valid. These marks could be scored by plotting
a log–log graph. In this case the analysis becomes more complicated and for the additional detail mark
candidates would need to state the gradient of the straight line if the relationship was to be valid.

The mark for safety considerations required naming a safety device and the reason why it is used in the
experiment. The safety precaution for this experiment was avoidance of being hit by the falling mass. Many
candidates gave a standard list of safety items which were irrelevant. Candidates should be encouraged to
think carefully about the specific experiment when deciding on the relevant safety considerations.

Candidates should be encouraged to write their plans including appropriate detail; often candidates’ answers
suggested that they did not have sufficient practical experience. Vague responses were not credited. Those
candidates who have followed a ‘hands on’ practical course are generally much better placed to gain credit
for additional detail. It is essential that candidates’ give detail relevant to the experiment in question rather
than general ‘textbook’ rules for working in a laboratory.

Question 2

In this data analysis question, candidates were given data on how the performance P of a motor vehicle is
affected by the speed v of the vehicle.

(a) This question was generally answered well.

(b) A few candidates lost credit for rounding errors. Many candidates did not realise that for logarithmic
quantities the number of significant figures corresponds to the number of decimal places in the
logarithmic quantity. It is expected that the number of significant figures in calculated quantities
should be the same as, or one more than, the number of significant figures in the raw data. Thus
when P has a value given to three significant figures, lg P should be given to three (or four) decimal
places. Determining the absolute uncertainty of lg P proved difficult for some candidates.

(c) (i) Plotting was well done, with only a very small number of candidates making unacceptably large plot
markings. Error bars were generally correct.

(ii) There were fewer instances of thick lines, shaded lines and faint lines in the drawing of the graph.
The worst acceptable line was not drawn accurately by a number of candidates.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(iii) This part was answered well. Most candidates clearly demonstrated the points they had used to
determine the gradient. A few candidates did not use a sufficiently large triangle for their read-offs.
The method of obtaining the uncertainty in the gradient was generally clearly set out. There were a
few candidates who did not label the lines.

(iv) Most candidates used the equation y = mx + c correctly to find the y-intercept by substituting the
calculated gradient value and co-ordinates read from the drawn straight line. Some candidates did
not realise that there was a false origin. To determine the uncertainty in the y-intercept, candidates
had to determine the worst acceptable y-intercept by using the gradient from the worst acceptable
line and a point on the worst acceptable line. Ratio methods cannot be used to find the uncertainty
in the y-intercept. In calculating the uncertainty in the intercept, some candidates did not use the
gradient or co-ordinates on the worst acceptable line.

(d) (i) Most candidates were awarded credit for the value of k. Some candidates were not awarded credit
for m because the value was out of range, or did not have a minus sign, or the value was given with
too many significant figures.

(ii) Many candidates did not realise that the percentage uncertainty in k is not equal to the percentage
uncertainty of the y-intercept. Stronger candidates clearly showed working to indicate a worst value
of k and then demonstrated how they determined the percentage uncertainty. Candidates who did
not show working, or whose working was impossible to understand, could not be awarded credit.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/52
Planning, Analysis and Evaluation

Key Messages

• In Question 1, candidates’ responses should include detailed explanations of experimental procedures.

• Graphical work should be carefully attempted and checked. Candidates should use a sharp pencil when
plotting data points and use a transparent 30 cm ruler when drawing the line of best fit and the worst
acceptable line; care is also needed when reading information from the graph.

• The numerical answers towards the end of Question 2 require candidates to show all their working,
particularly when determining both percentage and absolute uncertainties.

• The practical skills required for this paper should be developed and practised over a period of time with a
‘hands-on’ approach.

General Comments

Candidates were able to access all parts of the paper and there was no evidence that the paper could not be
completed in the time available.

Question 1 was an unfamiliar laboratory experiment. Candidates were required to plan an experiment to
investigate how the intensity of the reflection of sound from a wall varies with the thickness of foam attached
to the wall. Many candidates describing the method should have included more detail. Diagrams can be
improved, particularly in the drawing of workable electrical circuits and using appropriate apparatus. The
graphical analysis was generally understood and done well.

In Question 2, some candidates made rounding errors in the table of results. The plotting of points and error
bars and the drawing of straight lines were generally done well. The reading of co-ordinates for the
calculation of the gradient and calculation of the intercept was also generally good. Some errors were made
in the analysis part at the end of the question. Many candidates did not show clear working.

It is clear that the stronger candidates have experienced a practical course where the skills required for this
paper are developed and practised over a period of time with a ‘hands-on’ approach. To assist Centres,
Cambridge have produced practical support booklets which are available from the Teacher Support Site.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

Candidates were required to plan an experiment to investigate how the intensity of the reflection of sound
from a wall varies with the thickness of foam attached to the wall. Candidates also needed to explain how to
obtain an expression for the constant α – this should be explained using graphical analysis.

Most candidates correctly identified the independent and dependent variables.

Further credit is then available for controlling variables: candidates should indicate how a fair test could be
carried out by keeping appropriate variables constant. Candidates should explicitly identify the variables that
need to be kept constant; “controlled” is not an acceptable alternative to the word “constant”. Examiners
were expecting a reference to be made to keeping the distance from the wall/foam to the
speaker/microphone constant and keeping the incident amplitude or incident intensity I0 of the sound before
reflection constant.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Five marks are available for methods of data collection. Candidates were expected to draw a labelled
diagram of the apparatus. Labelled diagrams should be realistic in showing the laboratory setup. Stronger
candidates drew a diagram that showed a method for producing sound (signal generator connected to a
loudspeaker) and a method for detecting the reflected sound (microphone connected to a cathode ray
oscilloscope).

There was a mark available for measuring the thickness of the foam with an appropriate instrument.
Candidates also needed to specify how the density of foam would be determined. Stronger candidates
stated the equation for density and then explained how to measure the mass (electronic balance/scales) and
volume (length and width measured using a ruler).

The majority of candidates understood which graph to plot, although a number of candidates incorrectly
suggested plotting a graph of I against t. For the second mark to be awarded, α was expected to be the
subject of the formula. Some candidates clearly explained how α could be determined. Candidates who just
stated “log” needed to include more detail.

The mark for safety considerations required naming a safety device and the reason why it is used in the
experiment. The safety precaution for this experiment needed to be linked to loud sounds causing potential
damage to ears, e.g. use ear plugs/muffs/defenders. Many candidates gave a standard list of safety items
which were irrelevant. Candidates should be encouraged to think carefully about the specific experiment
when deciding on the relevant safety considerations.

Candidates should be encouraged to write their plans including appropriate detail; often candidates’ answers
suggested that they did not have sufficient practical experience. Vague responses were not credited. Those
candidates who have followed a ‘hands on’ practical course are generally much better placed to gain credit
for additional detail. It is essential that candidates’ give detail relevant to the experiment in question rather
than general ‘textbook’ rules for working in a laboratory.

Question 2

In this data analysis question, candidates were given data on an experiment involving a circuit containing
parallel plates separated by an insulator.

(a) This question was generally answered well.

(b) Some candidates lost credit for rounding errors. The determination of the uncertainties was
generally well attempted.

(c) (i) Plotting was well done, with only a very small number of candidates making unacceptably large plot
markings. Error bars were generally correct. Some candidates incorrectly plotted vertical error
bars.

(ii) There were fewer instances of thick lines, shaded lines and faint lines in the drawing of the graph.
The worst acceptable line was not drawn accurately by a number of candidates.

(iii) This part was answered well. Most candidates clearly demonstrated the points they had used to
determine the gradient. A few candidates did not use a sufficiently large triangle for their read-offs.
The method of obtaining the uncertainty in the gradient was generally clearly set out. There were a
few candidates who did not label the lines. A number of candidates did not determine the gradient
to the correct power of ten.

(d) (i) Most candidates obtained credit for the value of ε. For full credit, candidates needed to obtain an
answer to the correct power of ten with an appropriate unit. A few candidates correctly gave F m–1.
The common correct answers were A m–1 V–1 Hz–1 or A s m–1 V–1. Other correct units were credited.
A number of candidates did not write a unit.

(ii) This was generally answered well; most candidates used a fractional method. Where errors
occurred, candidates sometimes omitted quantities or subtracted the errors where quantities were
divided. Candidates who used a maximum/minimum value method often made mistakes. Clear
working needed to be shown for credit to be awarded.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(e) Many candidates did not determine the area of the square plates correctly and thus the answer for f
was out of range. Some candidates gave an answer with too many significant figures. Stronger
candidates clearly indicated appropriate substitutions and intermediate steps in their calculations.

To determine the absolute uncertainty if f, candidates had to show their working. Candidates who
did not show working, or whose working was impossible to understand, could not be awarded
credit.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PHYSICS
Paper 9702/53
Planning, Analysis and Evaluation

Key Messages

• In Question 1, candidates’ responses should include detailed explanations of experimental procedures.

• Graphical work should be carefully attempted and checked. Candidates should use a sharp pencil when
plotting data points and use a transparent 30 cm ruler when drawing the line of best fit and the worst
acceptable line; care is also needed when reading information from the graph.

• The numerical answers towards the end of Question 2 require candidates to show all their working,
particularly when determining both percentage and absolute uncertainties.

• The practical skills required for this paper should be developed and practised over a period of time with a
‘hands-on’ approach.

General Comments

Candidates were able to access all parts of the paper and there was no evidence that the paper could not be
completed in the time available.

Question 1 was an unfamiliar laboratory experiment. Candidates were required to plan an experiment using
a vibrator at a given potential difference to determine the maximum frequency of an oscillating metal plate at
which a small mass remains in contact with the plate. Many candidates describing the method should have
included more detail. Diagrams can be improved, particularly in the drawing of workable electrical circuits.
The graphical analysis was generally understood and done well. Many candidates did not provide enough
additional detail to receive credit; for example, many candidates could not describe the use of an
oscilloscope to measure frequency.

Question 2 required the candidates to plot a log–log graph. Many candidates made rounding errors in the
table of results and/or quoted values of log P to too few decimal places. The plotting of points and error bars
and the drawing of straight lines were generally done well. The reading of co-ordinates for the calculation of
the gradient and calculation of the intercept was also generally good. Some errors were made in the
analysis part at the end of the question.

It is clear that the stronger candidates have experienced a practical course where the skills required for this
paper are developed and practised over a period of time with a ‘hands-on’ approach. To assist Centres,
Cambridge have produced practical support booklets which are available from the Teacher Support Site.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

Candidates were required to plan an experiment using a vibrator at a given potential difference to determine
the maximum frequency of an oscillating metal plate at which a small mass remains in contact with the plate.
Candidates also needed to explain how to obtain an expression for the constant k – this should be explained
using graphical analysis.

Most candidates correctly identified the independent and dependent variables. Many candidates did not
receive further credit for defining the experiment. Candidates needed to explain that they would adjust the
frequency until the small mass just left the plate for a given alternating potential difference or, alternatively,

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

candidates needed to explain that they would adjust the alternating potential difference until the small mass
just left the plate for a given frequency.

Further credit is then available for controlling variables: candidates should indicate how a fair test could be
carried out by keeping appropriate variables constant. Candidates should explicitly identify the variables that
need to be kept constant; “controlled” is not an acceptable alternative to the word “constant”. Examiners
were expecting a reference to be made to keeping the position of the mass constant.

Five marks are available for methods of data collection. Candidates were expected to draw a labelled
diagram for this investigation which needed to include a vibrator connected with two leads to a signal
generator. Labelled diagrams should be realistic in showing the laboratory setup. It was also expected that
there would be a voltmeter or cathode-ray oscilloscope correctly positioned to determine the alternating
potential difference. The circuit must be workable. In any electric circuit, voltmeters and cathode-ray
oscilloscopes must be connected in parallel with the component across which the potential difference is to be
measured.

A mark was available for measuring the frequency from the cathode-ray oscilloscope or signal generator.
There were two additional detail marks available for explaining how to determine the period from a cathode-
ray oscilloscope and hence the frequency. Using a stop watch to time oscillations was not a suitable method
and was not awarded credit.

Candidates were then expected to explain how they would determine when the small mass left the plate.
Vague methods using cameras and videos were not credited.

The majority of candidates understood which graph to plot, although a significant number of candidates
incorrectly suggested plotting a graph of f against V. A small number of candidates received credit for
relating the value for k to the gradient. For the mark to be awarded, k was expected to be subject of the
formula. There was an additional detail mark available for stating the condition that the graph would be a
straight line passing through the origin if the relationship was valid. These marks could be scored by plotting
a log–log graph. In this case the analysis becomes more complicated and for the additional detail mark
candidates would need to state the gradient of the straight line if the relationship was to be valid.

The mark for safety considerations required naming a safety device and the reason why it is used in the
experiment. The safety precaution for this experiment was avoidance of being hit by the falling mass. Many
candidates gave a standard list of safety items which were irrelevant. Candidates should be encouraged to
think carefully about the specific experiment when deciding on the relevant safety considerations.

Candidates should be encouraged to write their plans including appropriate detail; often candidates’ answers
suggested that they did not have sufficient practical experience. Vague responses were not credited. Those
candidates who have followed a ‘hands on’ practical course are generally much better placed to gain credit
for additional detail. It is essential that candidates’ give detail relevant to the experiment in question rather
than general ‘textbook’ rules for working in a laboratory.

Question 2

In this data analysis question, candidates were given data on how the performance P of a motor vehicle is
affected by the speed v of the vehicle.

(a) This question was generally answered well.

(b) A few candidates lost credit for rounding errors. Many candidates did not realise that for logarithmic
quantities the number of significant figures corresponds to the number of decimal places in the
logarithmic quantity. It is expected that the number of significant figures in calculated quantities
should be the same as, or one more than, the number of significant figures in the raw data. Thus
when P has a value given to three significant figures, lg P should be given to three (or four) decimal
places. Determining the absolute uncertainty of lg P proved difficult for some candidates.

(c) (i) Plotting was well done, with only a very small number of candidates making unacceptably large plot
markings. Error bars were generally correct.

(ii) There were fewer instances of thick lines, shaded lines and faint lines in the drawing of the graph.
The worst acceptable line was not drawn accurately by a number of candidates.

© 2015
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9702 Physics June 2015
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(iii) This part was answered well. Most candidates clearly demonstrated the points they had used to
determine the gradient. A few candidates did not use a sufficiently large triangle for their read-offs.
The method of obtaining the uncertainty in the gradient was generally clearly set out. There were a
few candidates who did not label the lines.

(iv) Most candidates used the equation y = mx + c correctly to find the y-intercept by substituting the
calculated gradient value and co-ordinates read from the drawn straight line. Some candidates did
not realise that there was a false origin. To determine the uncertainty in the y-intercept, candidates
had to determine the worst acceptable y-intercept by using the gradient from the worst acceptable
line and a point on the worst acceptable line. Ratio methods cannot be used to find the uncertainty
in the y-intercept. In calculating the uncertainty in the intercept, some candidates did not use the
gradient or co-ordinates on the worst acceptable line.

(d) (i) Most candidates were awarded credit for the value of k. Some candidates were not awarded credit
for m because the value was out of range, or did not have a minus sign, or the value was given with
too many significant figures.

(ii) Many candidates did not realise that the percentage uncertainty in k is not equal to the percentage
uncertainty of the y-intercept. Stronger candidates clearly showed working to indicate a worst value
of k and then demonstrated how they determined the percentage uncertainty. Candidates who did
not show working, or whose working was impossible to understand, could not be awarded credit.

© 2015