Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

January2020

Pearson Edexcel International GCE

in Pure Mathematics P2 (WMA12) Paper 01
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

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

Grade Boundaries

Grade boundaries for all papers can be found on the website at:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-certification/grade-
boundaries.html

January 2020
Publications Code WMA12_01_2001_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright

© Pearson Education Ltd 2020

General

This paper provided a range of challenges across all questions, though the good accessibility
throughout that gave all students opportunity to show their ability. Perhaps the greatest difficulty
came in understanding the context in question 5, with many not identifying the correct ratio
required.

It is noteworthy as well that the majority of candidates were not prepared for the standard proof of
the sum of an arithmetic series, with few fully correct attempts at part 8(a).

The advances of calculator technology created some problems for the marking of this paper, with
the integral in question 4 and the summation in 8(ii) both being able to be achieved from the latest
modern calculators with little working being shown. There is an expectation for full working to be
shown, as noted on the front of the paper, so students would be well advised to ensure they show
sufficient working for all their answers, including if their answer has been achieved by calculator.

Going forward questions will need to be clearer on when calculator technology is and is not
appropriate, but the underlying understanding of students ought to be that reliance on calculators to
avoid demonstrating understanding of the topics on the specification is not acceptable in most cases.

Question 1

A very standard starting point in part (a) was followed by an immediate challenge of understanding
of the relationship of integration and its approximation in part (b). Very few scored more than 5 marks
in this question.

Part (a) was attempted well by the majority of candidates with correct use of the trapezium rule and
achieving a correct answer of awrt 45.6. The most common mistakes were due to putting an extra
term in the brackets or an incorrect h value using the formula with an incorrect value for n, usually
14  2
h , despite the gaps between consecutive x-ordinates being clear from the table provided. A
5
small number of students used x values, and some multiplied every term inside the brackets by 2 or
multiplied instead of added terms.

Part (b) had a varied response by candidates and was a good discriminator across grades, with (i)
being a challenge at E grade, while (ii) test A grade students. There were a few students who applied
the trapezium rule again to both parts of (b), failing to appreciate how their part (a) answer could be
used to calculate the required estimates.
In part (i) most candidates who used 2log2(2x) went on to identify that this was 2/5 of their answer
from part (a) and scored both marks, sometime due to the follow through mark. A few however
2 2
integrated the factor of to get x and so lost accuracy. More common among lower grade students
5 5
was to see an attempt at squaring the answer to (a) to form the answer.
For part (ii) even higher-grade students did not see how to proceed much of the time. Although
many students did attain the method mark for attempting to isolate log2(2x) term, it was scored
frequently via writing log2(2x) – log2(x2) or log2(2) – log2(2x), losing the accuracy mark in both
cases. In the form cases either the trapezium rule to a calculator were used to find the integral of
log2(x2).
The students who correctly identified the integrand as 2 – log2(2x) generally went on to score both
marks, although even here there were sometimes errors made.
 2
Many students who attempted this part attempted to use log 2    log 2 2  log 2 x . These usually
 x 
were unable to make further progress, but a there some successful attempts which did this and also
used log 2 (2 x) = log 2 2 + log 2 ( x) with the answer from (a) to find the integral of log 2 x first.

Question 2

This question was another with good access in part (a) but a challenge for all students in part (b),
with only about 20% scoring full marks.
In part (a) most students proceeded to write out the full expansion, not realising that they can use
the general term formula to write the term in x4 directly. Only relatively few were able to isolate just
the required term. However, the expansion was correct in most students work, and a correct
equation in a achieved. Omission of the power on the a was rare, usually a common mistake, but
mostly avoided for this paper.
The most common error in part (a) was to omit the negative root and give only 2 as the solution,
though this was often left as 4 . Another common error was to give only a decimal answer, and so
4

lose the final accuracy mark. Indeed, the modal mark on this question was 3, usually scored as the
first three marks of (a).
Attempts at taken out a factor of 36 first we infrequent, and in some cases led to an error in the
coefficient when extracted from the series.

For part (b) many students perhaps struggled with the concept of the term independent of x, and
many left this part blank, or instead tried to find the term in x. Others calculated only
1
× constant term from ( 3 + ax ) , perhaps becuase they had only expanded up to the x4 term in part
6

81
(a), so subsequently forgot the higher order terms. Many attempted a full expansion before trying to
isolate terms independent of x.
1
Those who did realise that the term a 6 x 6 × 6 = a 6 was also independent of x often went on to score
x
full marks, with few failing to add their answers. However a common mistake even among those
1
attempt this was to omit the power 6 on the 3, result in × 3 for the first constant term.
81
A small number of stutdent lost the final A mark due to using a decimal value of a and failing to
recover, while some others did achieve initally correct constant terms but made slips when adding
them together.
Question 3

This question proved much more accessible to students, seeming much more familiar territory than
the first two questions, with most students scoring highly meaning this question was not a good
discriminator for the paper.
 3
In part (a) most students correctly showed that f    0 but many failed to write a conclusion
 2 
therefore scoring 1 out of 2 marks. A few students instead divided (2x + 3) into the polynomial and
showed remainder was 0 which scored no marks as the questions asked candidates to use the factor
theorem. It is important to read the question carefully to ensure the correct approach is taken.

Most students in part (b) successfully found the quadratic factor 3 x 2  4 x  4 , usually by division,
and were then able to proceed to a correct product of linear factors. However, a minority of students
relied on their calculator’s equation solving facilities to find the roots of f  x  0 in order to write
the expression as a product of linear factors. The question asked candidates to use algebra and
therefore score no marks.
3
There were quite a number of students who used a tabular method with root − and in effect
2
 2
divided f  x by  x   but then wrote 2 x  36 x 2  8 x  8  2 x  33 x  2 x  2 , or
 3
similar. Some credit was awarded to these, but to score full marks a fully correct solution was
required.
For part (c) most students understood the link with part (b) and were able to correctly find an angle
from at least one of their roots. However, only a minority were able to find both of the required angles.
There was an issue with a number of students either not spotting that the question wanted answers in
radians or unfamiliar with how to get angles in the required range from their principal angles. Where
answers were given in radians, some students failed to gain the final answer mark due to an early
rounding error where answers of 2.17 were given instead of 2.16.

Question 4

This proved another accessible question with over half of students scoring full marks. The main two
approaches were both seen frequently, with the difference between rectangle area and area under

curve being marginally more popular. Attempts using

∫ x dy were seen, albeit only in a small
number of cases and were usually incorrectly carried out.
Most students were able to identify the limit 5 , but a few used decimals in the integration in
order to find the exact area, or failed to use their value in an integral or to find the area of a
rectangle.
Performing the integration, when seen, was usually carried out correctly, with errors in the integral
usually arising from bracketing errors in the “line – curve” approach. Only very few made errors in
the coefficient or power or differentiated instead. However it is noteworthy that there were a
number of students who relied on a calculator to evaluate the definite integral for them, which is not
advisable when an exact answer is required as permitted calculators are supposed to only be able to
carry out numerical integration, which will commonly give a decimal answer only as is not
acceptable method. As it happens, some calculators give the exact answer to this problem, and
students were allowed some credit for this. But full method must be shown for full credit.
When using the “line – curve” approach, it was not uncommon to see the difference the wrong way
round, though students would generally realise the final answer must be positive at the end and
recover the marks.
One common error, aside from bracketing mistakes, made in this question was that only the area
31 5
under the curve being found, being given as the area of the region R. Another mistake seen on
3
numerous occasions was to use the y values of 7 and 17 as their limits to an integration with respect
to x, which was incorrect and usually meant only the first two marks were scored.
A method seen occasionally was to split the area into a triangle and a small area between the curve
and the diagonal line; some of those who tried this were successful.

Question 5

This question proved challenging at all grades, and very few managed to score more than 5 marks in
total. Understanding the problem at the start was the stumbling block for many, with incorrect ratios
attempted, and very few were able to extract a percentage from their ratio correctly.
Indeed, in part (a) most students incorrectly used 30000 𝑟𝑟2 = 34000 instead of 30000 𝑟𝑟3 = 34000,
being unable to identify that three years after the start was in fact the fourth term in the sequence.
The mark scheme was generous, and these candidates were still able to score 2 out of the available
3 marks for this part.
There were also some confused attempts trying to convert between the ratio, r, and the percentage,
p. Many did not attempt the value of p as a percentage at all, thinking that p was 1.04, or 1.06 in the
case where r2 was used.

In part (b) there were many students who incorrectly used the formulae for Sn rather than un,
possibly because many "progression" questions in the past have tested knowledge of both the term
and the sum formulas. Only 1 mark was available to these candidates, if they correctly solved their
index equation using logs. This was another failing of comprehension of the question.
Also, many students who used N − 1 (rather than N) in part (b). These candidates could only score
3 of the 5 available marks in (b) unless they showed a correct understanding of the situation in their
final answer (if they had r =awrt 1.04). However, most students who realised the term formula was
needed, whether with N or N – 1, were able to score the first two marks.
Most of the students did score the B mark for using logs correctly to solve an index equation and of
those that had a fully correct equation, many went on to score the remaining two marks, for
evaluating their log expression and rounding correctly.
The correct answer N = 22 was rarely seen.
Question 6

Nearly every candidate attempted this question, and it was extremely rare to see no marks awarded,
but in many case progress did not go far beyond part (a). The topic of circles continues to be one
that confounds many students, with the modal score being just the three marks scored in part (a).
Part (a) was generally well answered. Those candidates who completed the square were usually
successful in finding the correct coordinates of the centre although there were some sign errors, and
again when dealing with the constant terms, resulting with an incorrect radius. But the correct
coordinates and radius were achieved by most.

In part (b) those candidates who made a sketch were more successful to get the correct answer
directly than the others who didn’t make a sketch. However, it was not uncommon to see
k = 2 ± 3 3 written directly, with or without a sketch.
A more common method, though, in this part was the Alternative Method of substituting y = k in
the circle equation and setting the discriminant to zero then solving the resulting quadratic to find k.
Some instead substituted x = −3 and y = k at the same time and calculated the two values of k.
Attempts at solving via calculus were seldom seen, and usually incorrect attempts at the derivative
were made, though correct attempts even via this alternative route were seen.
Some students added / subtracted the radius from the x-coordinate of the centre, when with a careful
look at a diagram it would have been clear that the y coordinate was needed.
Far too common an approach, however, to part (b) was to substitute x = 0 into the equation and
attempt to solve, and this was probably more common than either approach above, as less than half
of students accessed marks in part (b) or (c).

Part (c) was the most challenging part of the question and many students did not make any attempt
to answer it at all. Others simply reiterated their answers to part (b). The students who made a
sketch usually understood what the question asked and proceeded to answer correctly, but these
were few and far between. Some did calculate the distance 23 and go no further.
Substituting y = p and applying the difference of 4 between roots was rarely successful, instead the
discriminant was commonly set equal to zero again by students attempting such a approach.
However, the approach of identifying either x = −5 or −1 as the required coordinate and solving the
resulting quadratic, though rarely seen, was often successful when used.
Question 7

This question, like question 3, was a good source of marks for students on this paper. In contrast to
other questions where only very few scored highly, on this question less than 5 marks was
uncommon. As such it did not discriminate particularly well across the grade boundaries.
In part (a) students were very well drilled in the method required with nearly all candidates using
sin 
the identities tan   and sin 2   cos 2   1 in the equation. A few made errors in one or the
cos 
other of these, so scored only 1 mark, but most were able to successfully complete the proof.
Of those that reached the given equation by using the two correct identities, only a small number
sin
lost the final mark through notational errors, such as cos  2 or by writing  or not writing 
cos

Part (b) was answered well overall. The vast majority realised that they were required to use the
1
result from part (a) and most obtained the critical value of . Most of these used factors, although
3
some used the quadratic formula, usually successfully. It was rare to see incorrect solutions to the
quadratic.
Up to this point most responses were fully correct and it is only in the last two marks that a
substantial number of errors were made. The second method mark required candidates to not only
find the inverse sine of their critical value, but also to divide by 2 to get a value of x. A significant
number failed to divide by 2 and so lost the final 2 marks. A few used inverse tan and so also lost
these 2 marks.

Of those that used the correct method, a surprising number lost the Accuracy mark by either only
giving one answer 9.74 or premature rounding error, stating one answer as 80.27, rather than 80.26.
There were a small number that had an incorrect second critical value when solving the quadratic
equation, but these could still score 3 out of the 4 marks in (b)
Question 8

This question was not answered well by most of the candidates and few candidates gained full
marks. Indeed, the modal mark on the question was one, being the B mark for u5 = 22 in part (ii)(a).
The next most common mark was 4, usually scored by those who had learnd the bookwork proof
from part (i) and were able to score the marks.
In part (i) those who had learned the proof for the sum of the first n terms of an arithmetic series
often gained full marks. It was, however, surprisingly unusual to see a well set out, fully correct
proof. On the whole many candidates had a vague knowladge of how the proof started and where
they wanted to get to, but a surprising proportion of candidates struggled to write a correct
expression of S n at the start of their proof, often having the last term incorrect, or they did not
display a sufficient number of terms to make subsequent steps in their proof to complete. Others
failed to reverse the terms in the sum correctly, or at all. In a few cases students tried to pair terms
within one summation, (first + last) + (second + penultimate) + ... but they did not give due
consideration to what happens when there are an odd number of terms, and were unable to score the
accuracy mark as a result.
Some candidates either started with, or used something that they were trying to prove, e.g. starting
1
with
= Sn n ( a + L ) , or attempting to use a summation formula that is a generalisation of the result
2
they needed to show. Attempts at proof by induction were also seen in a few cases, though little
progress was made in most of these (correct such responses were seen, though).
Students who used S n =a + ( a + d ) + ( a + 2d ) +…+ ( L − d ) + L rather than
S n =a + ( a + d ) + ( a + 2d ) +…+ ( a + ( n − 1) d ) were reasonably successful, as they were able to
gain full marks providing they stated that L =a + ( n − 1) d somewhere in their proof.
Overall, students would be well advised to make sure they know the standard proofs for the
arithmetic and geometric series to ensure they are able to give should it be required.

In part (ii)(a) nearly all candidates gained the B mark by some showing calculation and some
writing 22 without any working. This was often the only mark gained in part (ii).

Part(ii) (b) proved to be the most challenging part of the question, with a variety of approaches
possible. Students usually began by writing out the first the terms of the summation, to try and spot
59
the pattern, though many assumed it was a single arithmetic series, with variations on ( 2 + 292 )
2
59
or
2
( 2 × 2 + ( 59 − 1) ×11) , being seen often, leading to 8673 as an incorrect final answer;
otherwise first term (again) = 2, and common difference = 11 also was used, leading to all sorts of
results.

Most correct solutions involved evaluating the sum on 5n and the second part separately, achieving
8850 − 3 = 8847. However, each of the variations in the scheme were seen on numerous occasions,
with varying degrees of success with different ways of splitting it into two separate series seen;
once they realised that this was necessary, they usually made progress. Using the odd and even
subsequences was relatively common, while pairing terms was less so, but done well once it had
been spotted. Some also found the sum simply by evaluating the terms and adding.
It is unfortunate that this is another question where some students were able to procure the answer
from a calculator and were able to gain marks for it, while others made valiant honest attempts to
answer the question without success. Working is expected and answers without working may not
gain full credit, so students ought to ensure they show working in any such question.

Question 9

This question did see a spread of marks, though in part (b) it was very often a case of either one
mark or all marks being scored. Most students were able to access some marks, but not many were
scored highly.

In part (a) most were able to score both marks for their sketch, though some did drop a mark either
through an incorrect sketch or failing to give the asymptote. However, there were many who made
little or no attempt at a sketch at all. Some benefitted from the scheme being generous with the
positioning of their horizontal asymptote, allowing a "gap" between the asymptote and the x- axis.
Mistakes included sketching a negative exponential function and sometimes an intercept (0,1).

For part (b) the majority of students understood that the x-coordinate of P was a root of the equation
61x  3 4 x and attempted to solve it using logarithms. Students who took the log of both sides of
their initial equation often made mistakes in their manipulation of the subsequent log expressions,
with log(3 × 4x) causing most problems, including writing 3 4 x as 12 x . In such case the first
method mark was all that could be accessed.

A few omitted brackets when simplifying log61 - x, writing 1 − x log6, but these candidates could
still score the method marks if they correctly applied the sum rule to the other side of their equation.
Most that had achieved linear equation in x from suitable log work earned the method mark for
rearranging to make x the subject and most of these that had a correct equation, went on to score the
final accuracy mark by showing an intermediate step of working to the given answer.
Those who manipulated the powers before taking logs, generally did better than those who took
logs initially. Of those attempting this method, some did not combine 4x and 6x, but many of these
reached the given expression correctly by taking the log of (4x × 6x) and returning to the main
scheme by reaching a linear equation in x.

Some students instead proceeded from the equation in x to 2 = 24x, took logs and proceeded to the
x
given expression. However, the step 4 x  6 x  4 6 proved a stumbling block to a few, who
failed to make further relevant progress before quoting the given answer.
Many showed log10 in their working, but a number used just log, which was not penalised at al
Question 10

Most students were able to access some marks in this question, though about 10% of students made
little or no attempt and scored no marks. Being the last question on the paper it is possible that time
may have been an issue for some, but overall this did not appear a problem on the paper. More
likely is that students had given up by this stage, despite that the first part was relatively routine on
this final question.
dy
In part (a) the idea that a stationary point is where = 0 was shown to be understood by most
dx
students, who proceeded to attempt the derivative. The differentiation was of a very good standard,
1
with only very few students making errors at this stage. Substitution of x = usually followed, and
2
3
in most cases it was seen set equal to zero. However, some attempted instead to use k = − instead,
2
so gained only the first two marks. The most common problems were not explicitly equating their
d𝑦𝑦 d𝑥𝑥 to zero; and failing to reach an answer via 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑏𝑏 or 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏 = 0. Both of these omissions
resulted in losing the final mark. For a given answer, sufficient evidence must be given to gain full
credit. A few had algebraic or sign errors and so lost the final mark.
1
Where incorrect responses were seen, this was commonly because the student substituted x = in
2
the curve equation and calculated the corresponding y coordinate instead of using the derivative.
Part (b) proved a bit more problematic for students. For those who did not successfully navigate
part (a), there was usually no credit worthy work in part (b) either. At this stage those who
substituted into the original equation would sometimes find the derivative at this stage. Others
would instead at this stage return to the original equation and find the coordinates of the stationary
point instead of finding its nature.
However, there were many who did recognise the second derivative was needed and proceeded to
find it. Again the differentiation was usually done well, although the sign was often incorrect in the
second term. It was not always clear if this was due to an error in substituting k or in differentiating,
but in either case would usually lose only the accuracy. More of an issue with this part was that,
1
having found the second derivative, not all students procced to evaluate at x = , instead either
2
using k, or simply making an unsubstantiated claim about the sign of the second derivative.
1
Those who achieved a value of −12 for the second derivative at x = would usually go on to make
2
the correct deduction, though some omitted the reason.
Attempts at the first derivative test were seen, though not common. The closeness of the two
stationary points often led to the attempts being unsuccessful, though if points x = 0.4 and x = 0.6
were chosen it was possible to answer correctly via this method.

In part (c) the question stated “using algebra” although this was ignored or not understood by a
substantial number of students who again turned too quickly to their calculator to try and solve the
problem for them. In this case the question had given warning so they often would score no more
than the first method mark.
dy
Most students realised they needed to consider = 0 again and returned to 12x2 – 9 – kx-2 = 0 but
dx
many were not able to proceed to a 3 term quartic equation in x. Those who used their calculators to
give 4 values from this equation gaineed no marks as a result, while those who reached the correct
quartic equation, but then used their calculators and wrote the solutions of the equation directly and
lost 3 marks.
Those who did realise that “using algebra” meant they needed to show their working make some
progress if they reached a quartic. Commonly they changed the variable e.g. y= x2 for their
quadratic equation, correctly solved it (mostly by factorisation) and stated the x-coordinate of the
second stationary point. Some were able to achieve the factorisation without a substitution and also
answer successfully, but there were also many who used “x2 =x” and end up solving the quadratic
but failing to then square root the results.
Not everyone took notice of the part of the question where it stated 𝑥𝑥 > 0. Giving both negative and
positive values for the 𝑥𝑥-coordinate lost the final A mark.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom