Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

October 2020

Pearson Edexcel International Advanced

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

October 2020
Publications Code WFM01_01_2010_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
General
This paper proved very accessible for average candidates. Most coped well with
‘standard’ demands, but there were one or two more unusual questions which
provided discrimination. Standards of algebra and arithmetic were generally good, so
that careless mistakes were less common than is sometimes the case.
There were few blank responses to questions, suggesting that most candidates had
sufficient time to complete the paper to the best of their ability.
The solution space provided on the paper was almost always more than adequate.
Most candidates realised the need to show their working clearly, but there were
inevitably some who penalised themselves by providing insufficient evidence to
justify marks, particularly in ‘show that’ questions.

Report on individual questions

Question 1
This was generally well done.
In part (a) the vast majority of candidates demonstrated an understanding that the root
could be identified by a change in the sign of the function within the given interval. A
mark was sometimes lost due to a missing conclusion.
Most candidates differentiated successfully in part (b), but a very common error was
to have the wrong sign for the final term. This error was usually made when
expressing f(x) as separate terms rather than in the differentiation. Relatively few
applied the quotient or product rule for the differentiation but if they did it was often
successful.
In part (c), most candidates applied the Newton-Raphson procedure correctly, but a
mark was often lost because of the error in part (b).

Question 2
It was evident that candidates knew how to use the properties of sum and product of
roots, as there was no evidence of attempts to solve the equation, as has happened in
the past.
In part (a) almost all candidates obtained the correct values for the sum and product.
In part (b)(i) nearly all candidates used the correct expression for the sum of the
squares and most avoided careless errors to obtain the correct value. In part (ii),
however, more errors were seen as the expression for the sum of the cubes was
misremembered.
Part (c) was generally well done, the majority producing a fully correct solution.
Most were able to find the sum and product of the roots with only a few careless
errors. As always, a few candidates obtained the incorrect sign for the x term. Very
few failed to produce integers in their final quadratic with only one or two forgetting
the vital ‘= 0’.
Question 3
Responses to this question were generally very good.
In part (a) most candidates correctly identified the other two roots or correctly stated
all four roots. For the Argand diagram in part (b) most sketches were convincing
enough to score the marks, although more accuracy and clarity would have been
desirable.
For part (c) the standard approach of using conjugate pairs to determine the quadratic
factors was by far the most common and usually successful. Other methods (as
described in the mark scheme) were rarer and more likely to introduce errors.

Question 4
Part (a) of this question was generally very well done. Most candidates were able to
expand the expression and use the appropriate summation formulae. It was rare for the
final term to be 1 rather than the correct n. There were occasional algebraic errors but
these were not common. About 20% of candidates expanded completely and
collected terms, which in this instance did not create any complications. Most did,
however, take out a factor of n/3 early in their work.
Part (b) was poorly done, with only a minority of candidates scoring full marks. Most
candidates either did not notice the reference to the odd numbers or did not connect
this to the summation in part (a). The majority used limits of 500 and 200, but then
sometimes failed to reduce the lower limit by one. There were some other
combinations of limits, such as from 1 to 300, and other somewhat random uses of
formulae, none of which gained any credit.

Question 5
Part (a) of this question, establishing the equation of the normal to the hyperbola, was
generally very well done. Most answers scored full marks, achieving the given result
with no difficulty.
In part (b), however, although many candidates achieved the first two marks by
obtaining a correct three term quadratic equation, success was variable thereafter.
Some of those who scored the remaining marks achieved them quickly by factorising
correctly, using (x – 8p) as a factor, and some applied the quadratic formula correctly
and spotted that the discriminant was an exact square. Many were unable to cope with
the required algebra.

Question 6

For part (i)(a), many candidates seemed to recognise the transformation represented
by the given matrix, but the use of correct mathematical language such as ‘stretch’
(rather than ‘enlargement’) was expected. Descriptions indicating ‘in the direction of
the y axis’ and ‘scale factor 3’ varied but could usually be correctly interpreted.
Although not penalised, quite a few candidates mentioned the origin, which is not
relevant to this transformation.
In (i)(b) most candidates produced the correct form of matrix, but many used an
incorrect angle, an anticlockwise rotation being a fairly popular choice.
In (i)(c) most had the correct idea and multiplied their B by A correctly, many
obtaining the correct result. Only a small minority evaluated AB instead of BA.
Part (ii) of this question was generally better done than part (i). Many candidates were
totally successful, usually using the determinant as an area multiple and working with
the given trapezium. A minority of candidates chose to calculate the coordinates of
the transformed shape and then used the ‘shoelace’ method to obtain the area of the
transformed shape. The majority of those that chose this approach were able to apply
it correctly. The candidates who sketched the trapezium generally did better than
those who did not. Some were only able to find the value of the determinant and made
no more progress. Others found a negative value of k even though it was defined as a
positive constant.

Question 7
This question proved challenging for many.
In part (a) there were two main possible methods. The first involved using the given
equations to form an equation in one variable, then applying the discriminant
condition for equal roots. Many candidates failed to apply the discriminant condition.
For the second method the approach was to differentiate the parabola equation and to
equate gradients, leading to an x or y coordinate in terms of a, which could then be
used to form an equation in a. Numerous slight variations were also seen, many of
which involved parameters. Many candidates lost their way in part (a) and complete
success was not common. Some effectively resorted to assuming the given value of a.
Part (b), however, was generally well done with many achieving both marks.
In part (c) most candidates achieved the first 2 marks indicating the focus and finding
a y value at the directrix. Success in finding an appropriate method for the area of
triangle PSA was more variable. A decent sized precise diagram was extremely
helpful here. There were several correct valid methods for finding the required area,
the most common of which are described in the mark scheme.

Question 8
Most candidates knew how to structure the standard induction proof in part (i). The
majority did show convincingly that the result is true for n = 1.
The initial expression for the sum of (k + 1) terms was usually correct, although a few
candidates seemed unaware of how to proceed. The next stage was to collect terms
over a common denominator, and here some struggled with the algebra, but most
achieved a correct expression. Many did now work through carefully to obtain the
correct quartic in the numerator, successfully obtaining the required expression.
However, a substantial minority simply wrote down the final expression without
enough working to establish the result. Generally, candidates were able to produce a
comprehensive induction statement.
Candidates seemed to be better prepared for the ‘divisibility’ type of induction proof
in part (ii), and most had a sound approach, showing the statement is true for n = 1
and then proceeding to work with f(k + 1) in one of the many possible ways..
As usual, however, a fair number of candidates got lost along the way, being unsure
of their strategy. A majority did realise that the object of the exercise was to obtain a
multiple of f(k) combined with a multiple of 7. A few who worked with f(k + 1) –
mf(k) did forget to make f(k + 1) the subject, but most did so without too much
trouble. The most skilful candidates recognised that taking m = 5 or m = 12 provided a
simple path to the solution.
There were occasional instances of candidates failing to complete this final question,
possibly due to poor time management.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom