Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

Summer 2023

Pearson Edexcel GCE

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

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

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

Summer 2023
Publications Code 9MA0_02_2306_ER*
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2023
General

This paper offered plenty of opportunity for students to show what they had learnt. The early
questions were accessible to candidates of all abilities and this was reflected by candidates
regularly scoring full marks on several of the early questions. The longer, later questions
provided suitable challenge for stronger candidates but also gave opportunities for restarts for
students who struggled with earlier parts of questions.

There were particular instances where marks were lost unnecessarily and the following
observations should be helpful to students:

• answers are sometimes not given in the form required, e.g. straight line equations such
as in questions 4(b) and 9(b)
• values are sometimes not given as exact or to the required accuracy as demanded in the
question, e.g. the exact value of R and the value of α to 3 decimal places in 8(a)
• answers not written as printed on the question paper e.g. the “= 0” missing from 3(a)
• answers not given as requested, e.g. the complete equation not given in 4(b) and the
partial fractions not written down in 10(a)

These points aside, there were many succinct and elegant solutions to the more demanding
problems towards the end of the paper.

Question 1

This question provided an accessible start to the paper for the vast majority of candidates, most
of whom picked up at least some of the marks available.

In part (a) most candidates were able to differentiate f (x) twice and were able to earn both
marks. If candidates did lose marks it was mainly due to arithmetic or processing errors such as
differentiating 3x2 to 5x. The most common error was a slip in the final coefficient of x.

In (b) part (i), most candidates were able to make a successful attempt to solve f ′′(x) = 0 for x.
The mark in this part was sometimes lost due to sign errors when rearranging. It was
2
surprisingly common to see 6x + 4 = 0 leading to x = . A significant number of candidates did
3
not simplify their answer, but this was condoned as were values which followed correctly from
an incorrect second derivative of the correct form.

Part (ii) proved to more of a challenge and many responses highlighted a lack of understanding
or awareness of the condition for a function to be concave. A number of blank responses were
seen here. Many who attempted this part of the question deduced, or guessed, that it was
necessary to consider the sign of the second derivative but were often confused about which
sign was required. Others attempted incorrect calculations setting f ′(x) = 0 and solving the
resulting quadratic in x. Occasionally, candidates attempted sketches of f (x) and/or f ′(x) in
order to determine the range of f (x) which was not required. Others attempted to demonstrate a
sign change in attempt to prove that the solution from part (i) was an inflection point. For those
employing the correct method, both strict and non-strict inequalities were accepted.
Question 2

For the most part candidates answered this question well. This was dependent on whether they
correctly understood the iteration formula.
In part (a) (i), although many scored this first mark, there was a common misunderstanding of
how a recurrence relationship works with confusion as to the meaning of n. Rather than term
position, it was often confused with 𝑢𝑛 so that the incorrect calculation
 35 
u2 = 35 + 7 cos   − 5 ( −1) was often seen, giving the correct answer but obviously not
35

 2 
scoring the B mark. Also not uncommonly seen was n replaced by un +1 , with candidates stating
 40 
u2 = 40 + 7 cos   − 5 ( −1) .
40

 2 
The errors stated above also affected the performance of some candidates in part (ii).
Furthermore, a minority of candidates had difficulty with accuracy in the sign of the final term,
struggling with the odd/even power of −1 . For example, when calculating u3 ,
 2 
u3 = 40 + 7 cos   − 5 ( −1) = 40 − 7 + 5 = 38 , was not uncommon. Occasionally,
2

 2 
candidates were seen to be working with degrees rather than radians, also leading to loss of the
accuracy mark.
In part (b) (i) most candidates understood the order 4, periodic nature of the recurrence
relationship and that u5 = u1 = u4 k −3 , k  Z + . Occasionally, candidates unnecessarily calculated
u5 , using u4 in the recurrence relationship, which sometimes led to the mark being lost either if
u4 had an incorrect value or if an error was made in the calculation.

In part (ii) many candidates recognised how to construct the arithmetic calculation to find the
required sum. The most common of these attempts were:

6 ( u1 + u2 + u3 + u4 ) + u1 and 6 ( u2 + u3 + u4 ) + 7u1

Credit was given to candidates who used such ideas with incorrect values from earlier in the
question for u3 and u 4 , although those who had a wrong answer in (a)(i) who used their
incorrect value for u 2 (rather than the given u2 = 40 ), lost both marks. It is important that
centres make candidates aware that they must use the ‘show that’ answer in subsequent
calculations no matter what they achieve in their working. Occasionally, candidates used


25
ur = 6.25 ( u1 + u2 + u3 + u4 ) but these usually did not add 1 to give a fully correct
r =1
method. Some also incorrectly tried summing the series as though the terms formed an
arithmetic progression. Some candidates incorrectly multiplied (u1 + u2 + u3 + u4) by 4 instead
of by 6. A minority forgot to add 35 to their total. A very small minority of candidates generated
all the terms of the whole sequence and added them together.
Question 3

There were very few non-attempts or zero scores here and this question proved to be a good
discriminator with a spread of marks achieved by candidates. Most students managed to score at
least one mark out of three in part (a) by correctly applying a single log law, usually the product,
division or power rules for logs. Dealing with the constant, 2, proved to be more challenging for
many. Those who wrote 2 as log2(4) and then applied the product rule for logs on the right-
hand-side had most success. Others grouped the three log terms and applied the exponential rule
to eliminate the logs. Sometimes there was a lot of working which wasn’t always set out as
clearly as it could have been. A significant proportion of candidates did succeed, but it was not
uncommon to see correct use of a log law followed by incorrect log work in an attempt to fudge
the printed result. Some poor responses involved an initial ‘cancelling’ of logs before any
attempt to combine log terms or to raise both sides to the base 2 correctly. There was a minority
of candidates who perhaps knew how to proceed but did not show sufficient working to gain full
marks in a ‘show that’ question. Candidates should be reminded that all steps should be shown
in this type of question. It was a shame when fully correct log work was followed by an
incomplete ‘equation’ at the end of this part, as missing the ‘= 0’ meant the loss of the final
mark here. A small number of candidates who were unsure how to start part (a) used the printed
answer and tried to “work backwards” but often made errors leading to incorrect solutions.

5
In (b) part (i), almost all candidates were able to correctly state the values ‘6’ and ‘ − ’, it was
3
clear that in many cases candidates were making use of their calculators to solve the quadratic
equation which was acceptable. Part (ii) however, was answered less reliably. Although most
5
candidates had some understanding of the domain of a log function and knew that x = − was
3
not a valid solution, many were unable to provide reasoning that was precise enough for the
mark here. It was common to see, for example, “a log can’t be negative”, which was not
considered sufficiently clear. Others stated simply ‘because it is negative’ which was also
insufficient. A range of responses which engaged specifically with the domain of a log function
needing to be positive were considered acceptable such as; ‘log of a negative value is
undefined/impossible/gives a math error’.
Question 4

Those scoring full marks in this question were in a significant minority of candidates.
In part (a) the majority of candidates used the given information to find the value of A. Those
that did not achieve this mark typically gave 85 as an answer. A few students failed to recognise
the standard technique of substituting t = 0 into the expression for H to find the value of A, often
using t = 1. Sometimes e0 was evaluated as e or 0 rather than 1.
Part (b) had mixed outcomes for candidates. Interpretation of the given initial rate of cooling
was problematic for many candidates. There was a general lack of appreciation that the rate of
dH
cooling was a continuous variable which represented − . Those candidates not recognising
dt
this and using a difference method (similar to those introduced at GCSE) between t = 0 and
t = 1 were restricted to the initial B mark in part (a). The most common attempt at a response for
these candidates was setting H(1) = 85 − 7.5 and working from there. Of those who recognised
dH dH
the need to first find and then substitute t = 0, many incorrectly used = 7.5 rather than
dt dt
dH
the correct = −7.5 to express a negative increase in temperature. This led to the loss of the
dt
last mark. Another error was to forget to differentiate the + 30 to zero leaving a constant in their
dH
, only scoring at most the second method mark for substituting t = 0 and their A into their
dt
dH
. Some differentiated incorrectly to obtain −55Bte−Bt. Several students missed out on the
dt
final mark despite correct work by not writing out the final equation. It is important that centres
make candidates aware that when a question asks for the complete equation for a model that it is
given as such and not just the values of any required constants.
Question 5

Part (a) of this question was accessible for the majority of candidates. Most understood that the
derivative at a stationary point is zero and were able to achieve both the method mark and the
accuracy mark, substituting x = 3 into the given derivative and setting it equal to zero.
Occasionally the accuracy mark was lost due to insufficient working following substitution e.g.
2(3)3 – 9(3)2 +5(3) + k =0 followed by k = 12 thus omitting a required intermediate step. In a
‘show that’ question candidates need to ensure that they have completely justified the given
answer. Occasionally students showed the substitution of x = 3 into the derivative, processed the
powers and simplified to obtain k – 12 and then jumped to k = 12. These responses lacked the
appreciation that the correct answer had been achieved because the gradient equals 0 at x = 3.
dy
There were some rare instances of candidates incorrectly substituting x = 3 and = −10 to
dx
find the value of k. Some candidates automatically integrated the given derivative but then
realised that the differentiated expression was required in order to answer part (a) which they
then successfully did. Other candidates integrated the expression and then substituted in the
value for k = 12 to achieve an answer for part (b). Occasionally they then used the answer to
part (b) to find k = 12, so were unable to access the marks available for this part of the question.
A rarely seen alternative was to use algebraic division to divide the given polynomial by the
linear factor (x – 3) to achieve a remainder of −12 + k, and then equate that remainder to zero.
This approach was met with varying degrees of success and students were often unable to
complete the algebraic division successfully.

In part (b), candidates generally understood that they were required to integrate the expression
and the straightforward integration meant the first method mark was commonly achieved. Most
realised that they then needed to find the value of their constant of integration using x = 3 and
y = −10 to determine the point where the curve crossed the y-axis and achieved the second
method mark. The majority of students were successful in achieving full marks in this part, with
most stating their answer in coordinate form (0, −28) though some candidates left their answer
as c = −28, not making the link with the y intercept explicit. Very few candidates made
numerical slips in their processing to find the value of their constant of integration. Where
mistakes were made, a common reason for not scoring the second method mark was due to
substituting in a value of 0 instead of −10 for y in the integrated expression. Where the constant
of integration had been omitted candidates went directly to substituting x = 0. Less commonly,
some candidates differentiated rather than integrated and tried to find the roots of the second
derivative rather than the y intercept.
Question 6

This question was relatively well attempted. Most candidates attempted both parts and scored
highly overall.
In part (a) the majority of candidates correctly identified 10i + 24j, and 50i + 120j. Those who
didn’t, often mistakenly added the position vectors instead of subtracting them. Most then went
on to show that one was a multiple of the other (or that they were both different multiples of the
same vector). However, some wrote the vectors the wrong way round for their multiple, which
lost the second mark.
Some candidates used other successful methods involving ratios or “gradients”.
A common error here was candidates attempting to conclude the vectors were parallel by
calculating and using their magnitudes. The most common reason for the loss of a mark in part
(a) was with candidates correctly showing that the two vectors were multiples of each other but
then not drawing a conclusion afterwards. It is important that candidates state what is shown by
their working and provide a conclusion.

In part (b) most candidates correctly identified the lengths of AB, BC, CD and AD, but many left
out their calculations by not showing the application of Pythagoras’ Theorem. This is an
important step that should be included to fully demonstrate where their answers came from.
There was a misunderstanding by some students who thought they could add the 4 vectors of the
sides together to calculate a total vector and work out the length of the resulting vector. A few
instead found the lengths of the position vectors and added them. Some also assumed that there
were two pairs of equal length lines and/or two pairs of parallel lines and just used the two
lengths from part (a) then doubled them. Despite this, candidates often achieved the first two
marks. The calculation of the average speed was also done well by many candidates. Although
several candidates based their calculation on a single lap and arrived at half the correct answer,
5
the majority completed it correctly and clearly showed division by a fraction equivalent to
60
1
(most commonly ) or multiplication by its reciprocal. Candidates should be aware of the
12
general instruction in the rubric to give non-exact answers to 3 significant figures; it was
common to see 7 or 7.0 instead of the correct final answer.
Question 7

Almost all candidates attempted to use implicit differentiation with good levels of success. It
was somewhat surprising that a significant number of candidates were let down by failing to
differentiate the constant term correctly despite, in many cases, managing to correctly carry out
some of the more complex steps in the implicit differentiation. It was not uncommon though to
d dy
see errors in either the product rule for 2xy (often obtaining ( 2 xy ) = 2 or
dx dx
d dy
( 2 xy ) = 2 x or errors in the application of the chain rule when differentiating 3y2. A
dx dx
dy
surprising number of candidates set their first line of working equal to and fortunately this
dx
was often ignored in later working and so was condoned. Some candidates however, attempted
dy dy
to incorporate the extra term into their manipulations to find an expression for and this
dx dx
was costly. A few candidates struggled to deal with the negative terms in their numerator (or
denominator) which led to sign errors in part (b). Others made slips in the rearrangement which
lost the final mark. In some cases, there were issues with clarity of notation for the final
dy
statement of in terms of the positioning of the minus sign and candidates should be advised
dx
to take care when drawing the vinculum, particularly when the starting term of the numerator is
negative to make sure the sign is in the correct place.

In part (b), the majority of candidates were able to use the correct approach to find the equation
of the normal and candidates were often able to earn at least some of the marks here even if they
had been unsuccessful in part (a). The least successful approach for calculation of the gradient
dy dx
of the normal tended to involve an attempt to rearrange the expression for into − prior to
dx dy
substitution and this seem to be more error-prone than the alternative of substituting in values as
a first. Some candidates did not spot that point P on the curve had been given in the question
and so didn’t use this point in order to find the equation of the line. In some cases, candidates
found the equation of the tangent rather than the normal whilst others made arithmetical slips
and lost the accuracy mark. Occasionally candidates did not state their equation in the required
form which was a shame when it followed correct work.
Question 8

Part (a) of this question was generally answered very well with candidates regularly scoring full
marks. Candidates seemed to be well practiced at converting to harmonic form and working in
radians. The most successful candidates wrote out the full expansion of R cos ( −  ) rather
than trying to take a short cut. The common issues included giving a decimal solution for R or
rounding the value of α to a lower degree of accuracy than was required in the question. There
2
were a small number of candidates who worked with tan  = and so lost the method mark
8
and the accuracy mark.
Candidates found part (b) more challenging, with many failing to link areas of mathematics, in
this case trigonometry and series. Even where a candidate successfully found the sum,

S = 9 cos x + 36sin x , many did not relate it to part (a). Those who did recognise the form
were usually able to get 4.5  " R " , usually 4.5  2 17 for part (i). Some seemed to
misread the question and stated the minimum value, so lost the accuracy mark. A significant
number of candidates found a correct expression in harmonic form but lost both the M1 and A1
as they kept a correct 9 17 embedded in their expression.

Candidates were slightly more successful in part (ii). Most candidates who stated a correct value
for the maximum, also got the value of x correct, more often than not giving it to the same
accuracy as in part (a). A few benefitted from this being a follow through mark. Some
candidates tried to find a subsequent value for  and were often out by  or 2 , or attempted
to rearrange x − 1.326 =  . A few responses were seen where S was differentiated and set to
zero to find a maximum. These candidates often lost the accuracy mark as they found an answer
of 37.1. A lot of incorrect responses gave a maximum of 36 when sin x = 1 or 45 from finding
36 + 9.
Question 9

Most candidates found part (a) challenging but it was usually attempted. There were not many
blank responses. Of the four methods listed on the mark scheme, one common successful
method was to substitute t in terms of x into y = 6ln(t + 3) via “completing the square” (way
1). When substituting into y = 6ln(t + 3), if a correct t equation was created, then this usually
led to full marks. Another common approach was to rearrange t in terms of y, usually
y
successfully as t = e − 3 and substitute into x = t2 + 6t − 16 (way 3). When using this method
6

y
some candidates had difficulty squaring e 6 meaning they were unable to earn full marks. Some
candidates incorrectly set x + 25 = x + 5 thus also losing the accuracy mark. A significant
number of candidates factorised x = t2 + 6t − 16 to give x = (t − 2)(t + 8) and then wrongly
thought x = t − 2. This then often led to y = 6ln(x + 5) which scored no marks in this part.
Candidates were generally more successful in part (b) than part (a). Many candidates found the
y intercept by substituting t = 2 into the parametric equation for y rather than substituting x = 0
into the Cartesian equation. The first method mark was more challenging. Some candidates
3
attempted the derivative from the Cartesian equation and they usually reached either or
( x + A)
3
whilst others attempted to use the chain rule approach. Some candidates obtained the correct
x
derivative but failed to substitute x = 0. If a candidate achieved the first method mark, they
usually went on to achieve the dependent method mark for attempting to find the equation of the
tangent. There were very few cases where the candidate used the negative reciprocal of their
gradient. The most successful way candidates achieved full marks was differentiating their
Cartesian equation. Those that differentiated parametrically were often caught out by arithmetic
and algebraic errors or substituted t = 0 instead of t = 2 and failed to achieve the gradient
correctly. For the final answer, some candidates had failed to realise the form of equation the
question was asking for so left their answer as “y =” or they didn’t have 𝑎, 𝑏 and 𝑐 as integers.
Many candidates who had incorrectly answered (a), were able to go on to achieve full marks in
(b) by using parametric differentiation to work out the gradient. There were very few blank
responses for this part of the question.
Question 10

Part (a) was generally done well with most candidates not deterred by the occurrence of the “k”
in the numerator. The majority of students correctly formed the partial fractions and set up the
identity in terms of A and B. Once there, most of them correctly went forward by substituting x
as 2 and − 4 and finding A and B in terms of k. Some set up their partial fractions in the form
B C
A+ + but very rarely managed to achieve A = 0. The method of comparing
x+4 x−2
coefficients and solving two equations in A and B simultaneously was seen very occasionally.
Errors were made where candidates had assigned the wrong values for A and B in their final
partial fractions. A common sign error was made when substituting in x = − 4, leading to solving
−12k − 18 = −6A to obtain A = 2k − 3, instead of A = 2k + 3. Some did not fully simplify their
expressions for 𝐴 or 𝐵, leaving them as fractions. Another error at this stage generally involved
not substituting for x in the 3kx term, leaving A and B in terms of x. Some students transposed
the x − 2 and x + 4 at the beginning so lost the B mark but generally followed through correctly
and scored the method mark. In a small number of cases, the last mark was lost after candidates
correctly found the numerators in terms of 𝑘, but did not write down the correct partial
fractions.
Very few candidates managed full marks in part (b), although the majority did gain the first
method mark for integrating to obtain …ln(x + 4) or …ln(x − 2). Those who did not recognise
the logarithmic form for the integration were unable to score any marks in this part. Some
achieved the correct form after first using a formal substitution. Of those who integrated their
partial fractions successfully, the vast majority were far from strict in their use of the modulus
symbol and many lost marks due to lack of appreciation of its importance. Use of modulus
notation for integrating reciprocal functions should be picked up by centres as a teaching point
with future cohorts. Students who had written the incorrect term − ( k − 3) ln ( −5 ) or even the
correct term − ( k − 3) ln −5 after applying the limit x = −3 , went on to indicate that they
believed this term was zero or could just be ignored. Another example of poor practice was
missing brackets around the coefficients e.g. 2k + 3ln ( x + 4 ) + k − 3ln ( x − 2 ) being
surprisingly common. The “invisible” brackets were sometimes recovered but in many cases
were not. There were also examples where the brackets around the (x + 4) and the (x − 2) were
also missing. Those with a systematic well-laid out approach for the substitution of limits in
both terms and identifying clear subtraction of the lower limit, went on to score 3 or 4 marks in
part (b) and commonly full marks for the question. Many candidates however were hampered
by their own layout making the correct interpretation of ln (−5) as ln |5| even more
challenging. The perhaps unfamiliar, exact form needed for k also proved a challenge for even
the best candidates. There were some elaborate attempts to achieve an expression for k, some
using exponentials, but many gave up along the way. There were, however some very elegant
and correct solutions to this question and some different forms of the exact equivalent answer
21
were seen, for example 21log 5 e − 6 but most correct answers were given as − 6.
ln 5
Question 11

Many candidates found this question challenging and there were a significant number of blank
responses.
Candidates found part (a) particularly challenging, with many attaining either no marks or the
first mark only. The concept of connected rates of change is one that candidates frequently
struggle with. A good number found an expression for V and successfully differentiated to get
dV
= 200 , although some confused the volume of water with the volume of the tank. Many
dh
dV 1 dV k
candidates failed to recognise that  and hence = . Of those who had some
dt h dt h
dV
concept of the rate being , many misunderstood the idea of inverse proportion and others
dt
missed the constant of proportionality. Even where candidates had correct expressions for both
dV dV dh
and , they often failed to use the chain rule correctly to find . Many candidates
dh dt dt
dh 1 k
who did link their expressions correctly, achieving = 
dt 200 h
 k
or equivalent, stated that this could be expressed as , with  = and so gained all
h 200
three marks. Others made no reference to 𝜆 and so lost the accuracy mark. A less common, but
dV d ( 200h )
correct, approach used =
dt dt

Approaches to part (b) of the question were very mixed. Many candidates failed to realise that,
as the question said, ‘use the model to find an equation’, they were expected to, for example,
separate the variables and use calculus to solve the differential equation. As they were asked to
give their answer in a specific form, a large number started from this and found the constants A
and B using the given values of t and h. Fortunately, they were able to gain two marks from the
special case. Candidates who used calculus rarely had problems integrating h , although
3
2
errors were seen later when substituting into h or in dealing with the
2
when rearranging the
3
equation. Candidates who started this part with the 𝜆 were generally more successful. Some
candidates correctly found c and 𝜆, and then rearranged. Others rearranged before making
3 3
substitutions, stating  = A and c = B . A minority lost the second accuracy mark as they
2 2
did not give the final equation in the correct form. Some candidates who had correctly found
dh k 1 k
=  solved the differential equation using in place of 𝜆, in most cases
dt 200 h 200
successfully, although the algebraic manipulation was more tricky. Some candidates who had
dh 1 1
made an incorrect attempt at (a) continued with their answer, usually =  , in this
dt 200 h
part. As they only had one constant, the ‘c’, in their expression, they could only attain the first
two method marks. It was rare to see the constant of integration missed and basic arithmetical
errors when finding either 𝜆 and c or A and B were also relatively infrequent. The alternative
dt h 200 h
approach, rearranging to give = or was seen on a few occasions.
dh  k
The majority of candidates who had a correct form of the equation in part (b) made a good
attempt at part (c) and were generally able to gain the method mark. Relatively few lost the
accuracy mark due to missing the units in their final answer. A number of candidates used an
incorrect value for h, most commonly 1000, and so lost both marks.
Question 12

In part (a), most candidates were successful in understanding the requirement to substitute zero
into NA and NB. There were some processing errors resulting in incorrect values for NA and NB.
A significant number failed to score the method mark by not subtracting their values. There
were a few candidates that did not recognise the question was scaled in thousands and left a
final answer of 5.
In part (b), a large majority of candidates were able to deduce that T = 3 and most explanations
were around the idea of the values increasing after this point. The next most common
explanation centred on the graph being a minimum or having “turning point” at this location.
There were also candidates who stated the gradient has increased or was positive.
In part (c), a significant number of candidates failed to identify either of the correct equations.
Many were able to identify and solve correctly at least one equation to find one critical value for
t. A common error often followed their correct equation of 5 = 3t when they wrote the value of t
3
as 3/5 and similarly, but less common, 13 = 3t leading to t = . Some students kept the modulus
13
signs within their equations and ignored them at various stages in their working which often led
to incorrect equations. There was an array of methods seen trying to negotiate the modulus signs,
and A + B = A + B was seen a few times and A + B = k  A + B = k 2 was also seen.
2 2

Those who found two values for t were generally able to score the 2nd follow through accuracy
mark for choosing the outside region for their critical values. The biggest challenge was the
final accuracy mark as quite a few candidates did not write the inequalities using set
notation. Those who attempted set notation usually were unable to write their answer correctly
 5 13 
in that form, some confusing  with  . A common answer was t   t   which
 3 3
was condoned for this final mark.
Those who attempted the squaring method in this part had minimal success depending on when
they chose to square.
Many candidates were successful in part (d) even if they had not progressed with the other parts
of the question. The majority of candidates correctly referenced the subscribers will become
negative to obtain this B mark. Where a candidate attempted this part but did not obtain this
mark, it was usually due to not making a reference to the number of subscribers becoming
negative, saying it goes to zero or that it is linear or decreasing. Several candidates thought it
couldn’t go above 8000 subscribers.
Question 13

Most candidates attempted at least part (a) of this question, but some found the work more
demanding in (b) and (c) and made little progress in either part.
Despite this, there were many fully correct or nearly fully correct attempts at the whole
question.

In part (a), most candidates successfully factorised out 3−2 and attempted the correct resulting
−2
 x
expansion of  1 +  . There were some arithmetic slips, but generally candidates often
 3
reached the correct answer. A common error, however, was failing to factorise properly,
reaching 3−2 (1 + x ) . There were a number of attempts at direct expansion. Some of these
−2

used non-standard binomial coefficients involving negative integers. To achieve credit for using
these, candidates needed to demonstrate the meaning of their non-standard notation. Very
occasionally candidates multiplied their correct simplified expansion by 9 or 27 at the end. This
still received full marks as examiners could ignore subsequent working following seeing a
correct simplified answer.

In part (b), many candidates correctly multiplied their expansion by 6x and then integrated using
the limits of 0.2 and 0.4 reaching 0.03304, gaining full marks. A common error, however, was
not giving the final answer to the required accuracy of four significant figures, thus losing the
final accuracy mark. Those candidates who had expanded part (a) to more than three terms also
lost this final accuracy mark as it led to a different approximation. A more complicated and
unnecessary method involving integration by parts was used by a small minority of candidates.
Candidates also often tried inappropriate approaches like dividing 6x by their expansion
followed by a logarithmic integral. A minority of candidates, despite the warning at the start of
the question, clearly used calculator technology to obtain 0.032865, rather than the answer of
0.03304 required. Others made inappropriate attempts at the trapezium rule, thus gaining no
credit as algebraic integration was required.
In part (c), the commonest methods of integration adopted were substitution, using either
u = x + 3 or u = (x + 3)2 , integration by parts, integration after applying partial fractions and
integration using the reverse chain rule after writing the integrand in appropriate form.
Candidates had varying success with all of these approaches, gaining a variety of marks.
Integration by parts seemed to lead to most arithmetical mistakes. Errors resulted from using
parts ‘the wrong way round’ and others integrated the ( 3 + x )
−2
term incorrectly. When
18
integrating by substitution some students incorrectly thought that − would integrate to a
u2
natural logarithm. There was some confusion with the limits; some candidates did not change
the limits to “u” values and other who did evaluate new limits for their substitution switched
back to an expression in x before substituting their changed limits. When using partial fractions
some students struggled with the initial format for the partial fractions and it was not uncommon
A B
to see partial fractions of the form + . There was a number of candidates who
3+ x 3+ x
either did not attempt this part of the question at all or who lacked a correct strategy. There were
responses where students attempted to integrate numerator and denominator separately, e.g. 6x
1
to a variation of ln ( 3 + x ) , and proceeded to multiply both results. A
2
to 3x2 and
(3 + x )
2
number of candidates were awarded just the first mark as their overall problem solving strategy
was correct despite the fact they were unable to fully implement it. There were also many
candidates who could carry out the work in this part completely successfully.
Question 14

Part (a) was at least started by many but when students failed to make any progress towards the
result, they tended not to attempt part (b).
In part (a) the vast majority of candidates scored the first mark for using a correct trigonometric
identity. The M and A marks were often both given or both lost, as candidates explored multiple
manipulative steps to reach the final form for the equation. In many cases this involved
expanding the brackets, using a substitution for sin 2θ, but later putting back into sin 2θ form
i.e., undoing the manipulation that had been introduced. Whilst in many cases this resulted in
the candidate getting there in the end, there were many examples of multiple attempts or
unnecessarily long solutions. The most efficient methods did not involve multiplying out the
bracket on the LHS which seemed to be the default first step for most students. A common
mistake was to suddenly put the RHS equal to zero so it disappeared rather than being
subtracted on the LHS. For those that were successful, there were a variety of approaches as
well as variety in the number of steps required to reach the correct final form, with some
methods considerably more efficient than others. Arithmetic errors were commonly seen in this
question. Many successful candidates attempted to find a factor of sin 2θ on both sides of the
equation before proceeding to collecting these on the same side. Another typical successful
method involved writing all the terms in terms of sin θ and cos θ, collecting all terms on the
same side, and then taking a factor of 2sin θ cos θ. However, many candidates who expanded
tended to forget terms when expanding or factorising, leading to an expression in an incorrect
format. Replacing tan θ and sin 2θ was usually handled well, as was replacing 1 + tan2 θ with
1
sec2 θ and then but many candidates didn’t follow the manipulation to the end and were
cos 2 
unsure what to do with the sin 2θ on the right hand side, so either left it on the right hand side
and lost both the M and A marks, or moved it to the left but then incorrectly dealt with it when
combined with the quadratic formed on that side.
Part (b) was generally done well by the candidates who managed to obtain a quadratic in part
(a), with many candidates correctly solving to get 360 or 540, and then solving their quadratic.
Those who found a solution to their quadratic also tended to find solutions based on that within
the specified set of values. Where marks were lost, it was often by incorrectly including extra
values,in particular the value of 450 degrees which had been specifically excluded in the
question.
Question 15

A number of candidates lost all marks on this question by not attempting any solution.
Most candidates correctly expanded the given expression and used sin2 x + cos2 x = 1 to simplify
and score the first two marks. A small number incorrectly used (sin x − cos x)2 = sin2 x − cos2 x,
scoring no marks. Others attempted to substitute values of 90 and 180 into the given expression
instead of using algebraic manipulation.
Whilst most candidates scored the first two marks, only the very best were able to score the final
mark, with most candidates failing to offer a convincing reason for a contradiction. Candidates
who drew a graph of sin x and cos x or sin 2x to support their understanding tended to score well.
Successful candidates typically explained that 2x must be between 180 and 360, and hence sin
2x must be negative, which is a contradiction with their inequality. Those that worked with sin x
cos x were generally more successful in achieving this mark than those who chose to use sin2x.
However, it was clear that not all students understood what an obtuse angle was. Another
typical correct conclusion involved candidates stating if x is obtuse, sin x must be positive and
cos x must be negative, leading to a negative product and a contradiction. Of those who were
able to offer a reason for the contradiction, some still lost the final A mark for failing to then
reach a conclusion that the original statement was true or because of errors in the proof such as
missing x’s or mixed variables.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom