Scribd
Upload
18 views

2012-ASL-Math - Stat - Perf

Uploaded by

Arborger
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

2012-ASL-Math - Stat - Perf

Uploaded by

Arborger
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Candidates' Performance

Section A (Compulsory)

Question
Performance in General
Number
1 Fair.
A number of candidates were not able to factorise . Some candidates tackled (b)(ii) in
a harder way without using part (a) and their performance was less satisfactory.

2 Fair.
Candidates did not perform well in chain rule.

3 Satisfactory.
Many candidates overlooked the units and did not use 0.5 to represent 500 since A^ ' was
given in thousand. A number of candidates could not well explain their answer in (c) because
they did not state clearly that A^^ was an increasing function.

4 Very good.
Nevertheless, some candidates were still not very competent in handling inequalities.

5 Very good.
Nevertheless, some candidates were not familiar with the operations of complement and
intersection of events.

6 Good.
Some candidates mistook cr„ as cr„_i . Some candidates relied too much on calculators and
did not have a clear concept of the definition of standard deviation.

Section B (A choice of 4 out of 6 questions)

Question Popularity
Performance in General
Number (%)
7 (a) 95% Very good.
(b) Good.
Some candidates were not very skilful in properly labelling the essential
parts of a graph. Some candidates missed the lower parts of the two curves.
(c) Fair.
The limit of integration with a negative value given by x = -k had posed
difficulties for many candidates.

8 (a) 58% Satisfactory.


Many candidates were able to use substitution appropriately but some did
not change the limits of integration accordingly.
(b) (i) Good.
(ii) Fair.
Some candidates did not realise that the second derivative of the rate of
emission should be q"" rather than q" .
(c) (i) Very good.
(ii) Good. Some candidates failed to see that a was not the intercept of the
function ln(16 - R) when expressed as a linear function of x .
(iii) Very poor. Many candidates were not able to comprehend the given
situation and failed to state that the total amount of sewage was '80 + result
of(a) +result of (b)(i)'.

49
Popularity
Question Number Performance in General
(%)
9 (a) 29% Very good.
(b) Satisfactory. Many candidates used an equation rather than an inequality
to solve for the value of a .
(c) Fan-.
Some candidates overlooked that the given condition was for the rate of
change of the rate of selling. When consider the maximum rate of
2
change, candidates should set the second derivative — ^ zero.
(d) (i) Poor.
Many candidates were not able to handle the quadratic inequality.
(ii) Fair.
Many candidates were not able to get the correct answer due to errors
made in the previous parts.
10 (a) (i)(ii) 91% Very good.
(iii)(iv) Good.
(b) (i) Fair.
Some candidates were not able to make use of the given information of
1500 batteries.
(ii) Very good.
(iii) Poor.
Many candidates had difficulty in counting the number of outcomes and
considering all the relevant ones. Some candidates failed to recognise
that a conditional probability should be considered.
11 (a) (i) 86% Good.
A few candidates did not divide the expected frequencies by the total of
120 days in order to get the corresponding probabilities.
(ii) Good.
(iii) Fair.
Some candidates did not realise that the given table has not exhausted all
possible outcomes and the possibility of having more than 10 babies in
a day has not been listed. Some did not understand the meaning of 'a
smaller sum of errors'.
(b) (i) Very good.
(ii) Good.
(iii) Poor.
Candidates were weak in analysing the possible joint events that could
occur under the given situation.
12 (a) (i) 40% Satisfactory. Some candidates had difficulties in analysing the scenarios.
(ii) Poor.
Many candidates were not able to come up with all the possible
outcomes.
(b) Very poor.
Candidates were weak in calculating probabilities by counting the
number of relevant outcomes followed by comparing with a given value.
(c) (i)(ii) Good.
(iii)(iv) Poor.
The weakness of candidates was similar to that stated in (a)(ii).
50
General comments and recommendations

1. Candidates seemed to have more confidence in dealing with less abstract questions. More candidates
therefore chose to attempt long questions in the statistics area. The statistics questions are usually closer to
real life but sometimes candidates were not able to analyse the given situation and correctly include all
relevant outcomes. More practice in the consideration of complex events may help.

2. Unclear and incorrect mathematical presentations were common. Proper presentation is not only a good
practice but can be very usefiil in helping the candidates' mathematical understanding and logical deduction.

3. Many candidates had been quite skilful in curve sketching. They are strongly encouraged to pay attention to
the proper labelling of their sketches. When candidates were required to find a required area on the graph,
they should first identify it in their sketching.

4. Mathematical reasonmg is important. Necessary proof in identifying a maximum or minimum has to be


presented fully. Conclusions, if made, should be supported by explanation.

51

You might also like