Justification for Past HSC (1 Viewer)

[mreditor16]

To get the single mark for Q16 b) i) in 2012 HSC 4U, do I really need this justification?

 

[dan964]

probably yes, otherwise it would require the addition/subtraction of pi, so it is the valid range for an inverse tan function.

(I have rarely seen general solutions except for one James Ruse 3U trial)
(then again I didn't do Q16 2012 when I practiced, didn't get up to it)

 

[mreditor16]

anyone else???

 

[GOsie]

anyone else???

Mate, literally just did the same paper and was wondering the same thing! I may be wrong (often am) but I'd think it isn't necessary as the question give you the condition. If the question didn't have the condition, then you'd probably need to prove that that was a condition. IMO (which holds no real weight) I'd say you could get away without stating it.

 

[mreditor16]

okay thanks guys.

keen to hear what Carret or Trebla have to say!

 

[mreditor16]

bumpity bump

 

[rumbleroar]

I'd say yeah, better safe than sorry but it does seem rather excessive for a 1 marker (but going to the marking criteria of some papers, they're very strict about conditions so it can be the difference between getting a 96 or 97 etc)

 

[i--N]

No, its not worth 1 mark. The one mark I assume is just for identification of what to do.

 

[faisalabdul16]

I'd say yeah, better safe than sorry but it does seem rather excessive for a 1 marker (but going to the marking criteria of some papers, they're very strict about conditions so it can be the difference between getting a 96 or 97 etc)

Just do the long way to be safe hahaha

 

[Immortality]

Personally I reckon that those conditions were given so that the identity you are trying to prove will have real values in that domain and it is probably excessive for a 1 marker, but I'd just address it to be safe nonetheless.