Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

# 1. No Report available for this question.

## 2. No Report available for this question.

3.

This question was quite well done. There were two main types of errors in both parts. The first was that candidates treated the question as if the first sweet had been replaced. The second type of error was to calculate the probability of green then red in part (a) and to calculate the probability of not red then red in part (b).

4.

This question was generally well done. A common error in part (a) was to calculate the percentage representing rugby rather than the angle. Some candidates calculated the percentage first, then rounded this result before converting the percentage to an angle.

5.

Many candidates were successful on most of this question. The most common mistake was using an incorrect denominator. Instead of using either 360 or 24, the most commonly misused was 12.

6.

Most candidates could exhibit some legitimate form of counting in part (a) to receive at least one of the two marks. The majority of these then went on to show that they knew enough about probability in part (b) to be able to apply the information from part (a) to obtain an answer.

7.

The candidates found this to be the most difficult question on the paper. The average for this question was approximately 40%. Some candidates found it difficult to read and interpret the information presented in the form of a histogram. The majority of the candidates were able to show that the mean of the data was 1.4. These candidates used two methods, one group added the 25 values before dividing by 25 and the other group made use of the frequencies, finding the total of the frequencies multiplied by the number of children then dividing by 25. Both methods received full credit. The majority of the candidates did not seem to understand what was required of them in part (b) where they were required to show they could manually use the standard deviation formula and many gave calculator steps and calculator results. Only about 25% of the candidates were able to show that the standard deviation was approximately 1.06. Of these candidates, some found the deviation squared, of each of the 25 scores, then proceeded appropriately to find the standard deviation. These candidates showed a good understanding of the concept of standard deviation but this process would have been very time consuming. The remaining successful candidates made use of the frequencies and correctly used the formula. The vast majority of the candidates were able to use the information about the means and standard deviations of the two groups and make at least one valid observation in part (c). The most common observation that was made from the data was that there were more children in the second group. There was a significant proportion of candidates who made references to the standard normal curve. Many of the comparisons lacked clarity and conciseness and were often repetitive. Parts (d) and (e) related to probability and in general were not well done. There were two main errors in part (d). In the first instance some candidates gave the probability of the woman having two or more children rather than more than two children. In the second instance the candidates used the number of children in this group (35) which they obtained from part (a) of this question. The errors in part (e) were many and varied and only a small proportion of the candidates showed a clear understanding. The errors ranged from treating the events as independent, not considering all the possible combinations to a complete confusion between addition and multiplication principles.

8.

Surprisingly few students scored well on this question, with many adding probabilities rather than multiplying.

9.

The majority of the candidates drew the Venn diagram correctly, and only a few omitted the universal set. A common error was to calculate x as 16. Several candidates described the region. With proper reading of the question the candidates could have avoided this mistake. The final parts of the question, on probability, were answered poorly.

10.

Several candidates omitted the probabilities of Jar 1 and Jar 2 on their diagram and many more drew a separate tree diagram for each jar and then had problems answering the questions that followed. Finding the probability of both beads being white proved too difficult for the majority of the candidates. Only a few candidates were successful with the whole question.

11.

This question was generally well done. The null and alternative hypotheses were clearly stated, the expected values were correctly calculated, most candidates showed how to find the chisquared and then used their calculators correctly.

## 13. No Report available for this question.

14.

There was a large number of candidates who included 1 as a prime number and who did not include 2. There is a certain body of knowledge that every mathematics candidate of this level should have. Facts such as the differences between the various sets of numbers (prime, natural, real, etc) and between various types of polygons (parallelogram, rhombus, trapezoid, pentagon, etc.) should be a part of this fundamental body of knowledge. Candidates are strong in drawing Venn diagrams, but have difficulty when they are asked to determine the answer to multiple operations with sets by using the Venn diagram (as in part (c)). Also, although candidates seem to be competent in calculating simple probabilities, they have difficulty when the sample space is changed, as in the conditional probability of part (iv)(e). Most candidates missed this part of the question. Many candidates mistakenly write the empty set enclosed in braces. Teachers should caution their candidates against doing this.

15.

A poorly done question. (a) Many candidates knew that they had to subtract, but incorrectly used 0.6-0.1 for the first value. 0.12 was usually placed correctly but again the wrong subtraction was done afterwards. Follow through marks were available and often part (i) was fine but part (ii) was very rarely completed correctly, though again, some kind of addition was often attempted.

(b)

Another source of error, which could easily be avoided in this type of question, is to enter the value of the product of probabilities for a whole branch of the tree in the position reserved for one of the individual probabilities. For example, entering 0.54 (which is 0.6 0.9) in the position reserved for 0.9. This is distressing to mark because although incorrect, it does possibly indicate some understanding of the situation.

16.

The tree diagram did not appear on all scripts - perhaps some candidates filled this in on the question paper (which is not sent to the examiner). A few candidates filled in the tree diagram correctly - but many candidates chose 1/4 as the probabilities for the second branch. Many answered the P(2 boys) correctly (or gained marks for follow through) but few calculated the remaining two probabilities accurately. Conditional probability seems clearly to be an area of the syllabus that needs to be reinforced.

17.

The initial stages of this question were tackled very well. Most candidates took part (a) in their stride. The shading in part (b) was less reliable though, and the story was very different by the time they reached parts (d) and (e). The sections on probability were done very poorly, especially when the problem involved no replacement. There is room for much improvement here.

18.

Many candidates did not appreciate the significance of the description different combinations in part (a) and so they answered 36 instead of 12. Fortunately this did not affect their answers in the other parts of the question. Follow through marks could also be awarded when clear working was shown irrespective of the candidates answer to part (a).

19.

Many candidates failed to realise that the bars of the histogram go from the class boundaries, and these were 0.5, 10.5, 20.5, etc. Most knew the modal class but many struggled with the median with 31-40 (the middle one?) being the most common. The first two parts of the probability were done quite well but few could cope with the conditionals in (iii) and (iv). Most had fractions with 50 as the denominator or were multiplying probabilities.

20.

Most of the candidates were able to complete the tree diagram but many were unable to answer part (b) correctly. The most common error was to multiply or to add 17/20 and 1/5 to give 17/100 or 21/20 respectively. Some calculated (3/4 17/20) ( 1/4 1/5) for an answer of 18/25. There are still a significant number of candidates who accept a probability answer of greater than one.

21.

## (a) (b) (c)

the Venn diagram was very well drawn. this part was also well done. parts (i) and (ii) were correctly answered on the whole - but part (iii) caused more problems. The candidates are still not comfortable with conditional probability. 8/100 was a very common answer to this part. most candidates at least attempted this part. Common errors were 5/100 5/100, 5/100 2 and 5/100 + 4/99.

(d)

22.

Part (c) caused some problems but (a) and (b) were not bad. Answers of 1/8 and 3/8 were accepted though strictly the answers were 1 and 3. Candidates should think carefully about what is being asked before writing an answer.

23.

Parts (a)(i), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) were generally well answered but the remainder of the question proved too difficult for many candidates. Probability, and in particular tree diagrams, have been examined often over the years and it is surprising that so many struggle to gain the marks. In (a) (ii), many found only one possibility for a plain and a chocolate biscuit instead of two and this was repeated in part (b)(iii). Others answered in terms of replacement when it was clear that the first biscuit was not replaced having been eaten by the child. Part (c) provided a very mixed result with several possible methods able to be used. Many candidates lost 2 marks in this part by showing no method at all despite finding the correct answer.

24.

The first two parts were well done on the whole. However some candidates still add rather than multiply and are often not worried about having answers larger than 1. Part (c) was less well done, with many candidates either adding or multiplying 0.02 and 0.45.

25.

(a)

A number of candidates did not realize that the universal set was the class of IB students. Although at least had been written in bold a number of candidates did not realize they were required to subtract to get the required numbers. However, follow through marks could be awarded in subsequent parts of the question, Conditional probability created difficulties for a number of candidates.

(e)

## 26. No Report available for this question.

27.

The first part was easy and the second part mostly correct though some simply wrote down the two probabilities and then failed to multiply them. In part (c), many calculated the numerator correctly but did not consider the conditional aspect. Some candidates thought about the question carefully and applied a bit of common sense to find the correct answer.

28.

Parts (a) and (b) were handled well but (c) was much weaker. There is room for improvement in this area.

29.

This part of the question was well answered with many candidates receiving full marks. Some candidates found the wrong values for a and b but many then proceeded to gain follow through marks for the rest of this part of the question. Conditional probability continues to be a difficult concept for mathematical studies students with many candidates giving the wrong value for the denominator.

30.

Probability. Very poorly done, the worst question for almost all candidates. There was almost no understanding of how to deal with the no replacement property.

31.

Sets and Probability. In general, this question was poorly done though there were many candidates who gained close to full marks. Most candidates were able to list set A, but that was it for some. It was obvious that a significant number of candidates had little idea about number and sets. It was common for the intersection of A and B to be given rather than the union and there were many wild guesses about the complement of set C. Some students were able to gain follow through marks by listing each of the sets they were dealing with - a very sound practice. The probability part was most disappointing. Many candidates listed 21 as the denominator not realizing that it was supposed to be the number of elements in set A.

32.

Histogram A surprising number of the candidates did not appear to have brought a ruler/straight edge and so lost a mark in this question as they were asked to draw a histogram which means the lines must be drawn using a ruler/straight edge. Some candidates drew a frequency polygon. Parts (b) and (c) were generally answered well though 20/35 was seen occasionally in part (c).

33.

Frequency Histogram and statistics Very few candidates could draw a frequency polygon correctly. The word Draw means that a ruler should be used. Many managed to draw from the mid-point of the bar but did not extend it to 0.5 or 5.5. Most could answer the probability part of the question.

34.

Venn diagram, probability, tree diagram (a) The Venn diagram was well drawn on the whole although some of the candidates missed out the Universal box and others filled in the intersections wrongly but still gained ft marks for the remaining parts of the question. Well answered. Well answered. Few correct answers. Either candidates added instead of multiplying or they used replacement and so the fractions given were the same. Again few correct answers. Candidates wrote the answer out of 50 instead of 15.

(e)