May 2018 subject reports

Mathematics HL TZ2
Time zone variants of examination papers

To protect the integrity of the examinations, increasing use is being made of time zone variants
of examination papers. By using variants of the same examination paper candidates in one part
of the world will not always be taking the same examination paper as candidates in other parts
of the world. A rigorous process is applied to ensure that the papers are comparable in terms
of difficulty and syllabus coverage, and measures are taken to guarantee that the same grading
standards are applied to candidates’ scripts for the different versions of the examination papers.
For the May 2018 examination session the IB has produced time zone variants of
Mathematics HL.

Overall grade boundaries

Discrete

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 14 15 - 29 30 - 41 42 - 54 55 - 66 67 - 78 79 - 100

Calculus

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 14 15 - 29 30 - 41 42 - 54 55 - 67 68 - 79 80 - 100

Sets, relations and groups

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 14 15 - 30 31 - 43 44 - 56 57 - 68 69 - 80 81 - 100

Page 1
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Statistics and probability

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 14 15 - 30 31 - 43 44 - 56 57 - 69 70 - 81 82 - 100

Higher level internal assessment

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-2 3-5 6-8 9 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 20

The range and suitability of the work submitted

It was evident that some schools had an exploration process in place that guided the students
and encouraged them to write explorations in topics of their own interest. These schools should
be commended.

On the other hand, a significant number of candidates submitted what they themselves called
a “research report” which simply consisted of transcribing mathematics and copying images
from online sources, textbooks and/or video clips. An exploration that simply relays published
findings is not likely to achieve high levels. Disappointingly, not only were there such “research
reports’, but a few of them were on topics that did not lead to mathematics at HL, such as “the
Golden Ratio” and “Tessellations”. The re-occurrence of staid, overly-subscribed topics which
provide little potential for personal connection, such as the “SIR” model, projectile motion and
“RSA encryption” was also noted. Perhaps schools need to be cautioned against using certain
explorations where students can only show feigned interest and reproduce published findings.
Some candidates produced explorations that were too ambitious in topics that would have been
more appropriate for an extended essay.

There was evidence to suggest that some schools are still advising students to write
explorations on Mathematical topics that are well beyond the level of the Maths HL course. It is
difficult in such cases for students to write an exploration that meets the aims of the IA within
the page limit. As stated in the guide “The final report should be approximately 6 to 12 pages
long. Students should be able to explain all stages of their work in such a way that demonstrates
clear understanding. While there is no requirement that students present their work in class, it
should be written in such a way that their peers would be able to follow it fairly easily.” Some
explorations were still far too long.

Page 2
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Overall, in terms of the quality of the IA submissions, the weaker ones were the usual kinds,
namely:
• rushed work where candidates started out satisfactorily but rushed to complete or finish
as much as they can;
• attempted too difficult a topic that was above the candidate's ability and struggled to
display understanding;
• selection of topic was not adequate from the beginning that led to an inability to display
reflection and an adequate level of mathematical understanding.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A

Unfortunately, the highest achievement level in this criterion seemed to be inaccessible for a
larger number of students. Some students submitted work with little flow, segmented with sub-
headings. For a piece of work of this length there is no need for a table of contents or a research
question. In some cases, students produced a research report about mathematics beyond the
scope of the course, difficult for an average HL student to understand.

Criterion B

The candidates’ mathematical presentations were generally good. Variables and parameters
were defined and most graphs were labelled. The misuse of calculator notation, particularly “*”
for multiplication, still went unnoticed by a number of teachers, as were errors in terminology
such as “plug in” for “substitute”.

Some candidates wrote about topics outside the syllabus, or modelled a situation from another
discipline e.g. Music, Physics etc. key terms were not defined and explained fully. Candidates
need to be reminded that any new terms, variables or topics need to be carefully introduced.

Criterion C

This criterion continues to present difficulties for some teachers and students. An expression
of interest is not in itself enough to justify a high mark on a relatively straightforward piece of
work. Research reports of familiar “textbook” derivations cannot be awarded high levels unless
the work is personalized and / or the student’s voice can be heard. Simply learning new
mathematics does not demonstrate abundant personal engagement.

Criterion D

Some students provided ongoing meaningful and critical reflection throughout the work.
However, more students provided a summative reflection at the end of the exploration as part
of the conclusion. Although this is not entirely wrong, the hazard in writing a reflection at the
very end, is that students end up describing what was done, without providing any arguments
about the validity or correctness of their approach. It should be noted that when the
mathematics is at a limited level and good understanding is not demonstrated then it would be
difficult to achieve critical, or even meaningful, reflection. Reflection in explorations should be
ongoing, and act as a stepping stone from one part of the exploration to another. Ongoing

Page 3
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

critical reflection is meant to drive the development of the exploration, by interpreting results,
discussing the implications of results and possibly refining the approach taken when
recognising shortcomings.

Criterion E

The mathematical content in explorations varied greatly. The greatest challenge for students
appears to be to choose a topic with mathematics at an appropriate level. There still seems to
be confusion among teachers regarding what is “commensurate” with the course. The
mathematics does not need to be exclusively from the section of the syllabus that is only HL. A
student may use simple mathematics but apply it to a topic that is personalized and still obtain
a good grade. If the mathematics used is very simple, then it cannot obtain high scores as it
cannot be deemed to reflect the sophistication expected. However, there was very little
mathematics of the students’ own overall, with many students producing polished “research
papers” with information gleaned from online sources cobbled together. Some explorations
seemed to be well-suited to a Mathematical Studies Project involving data collection, arithmetic,
and GDC based regression analysis. Although this is not entirely wrong, HL candidates should
demonstrate understanding of the analysis also. It was also noted that students who chose to
write research reports on topics beyond the HL syllabus struggled when trying to explain the
mathematics from one step to another, making it difficult to gauge the level of understanding.
Unfortunately, a number of times, errors were found in students’ work that were not identified
by the teacher.

Recommendations for the teaching of future candidates

It is of fundamental importance that students cite any work at the point of reference in the
exploration; this also includes any images, charts or diagrams. Unfortunately, citations were
rare on the majority of the explorations.

Teachers must emphasize that the explanation is for their peers - candidates seem to focus on
explaining every step on the calculations, but never state why these calculations are being done
(progression of developing the exploration) or why this approach was preferred.

It is recommended that the exploration is introduced as early in the course as possible, but the
actual process should be delayed until a fair amount of the syllabus has been covered.
Teachers should invest time in going over the criteria descriptors with students to ensure that
students thoroughly understand the expectations. One way of doing this would be to use
explorations from the Teacher Support Material with students. There was evidence to suggest
that students were not always given adequate feedback on a first draft. Students should also
be advised to proof-read their work before submission.

More emphasis should be given in the selection of an appropriate theme that allows the
opportunity for the use of Mathematics that is commensurate with the level of the course.
Students should be advised to try and present a personal example and try to obtain a solution
rather than reproduce general information found in sources, this also helps in the criterion C.
The exploration must meet the stated aim, and be concise and complete in order to achieve

Page 4
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

higher achievement levels. The student should always explain why every step is done and how
results are obtained.

Topics listed in the prior learning should be avoided. Attention should be paid to critical thinking
and applications of every math topic while teaching. Possibly teachers may engage students in
constructing their own problem situations throughout the course. A list of 'good' and 'not so
good' exploration topics could be shared with students and at the start of the formal process
students can brainstorm using these ideas. The practice of having students read mathematics
articles in academic journals needs to be encouraged.

Students should be reminded that the work submitted should be in standard format with an
appropriate font and at least 1.5 line spacing. Using a small font and single spacing to fit an
exploration into less pages should be avoided at all costs. Once the student work has been
scanned it should be checked by both teacher and student to ensure that scans are in colour
and that the scanned work is complete and legible.

Once the explorations have been submitted teachers need to mark the explorations. Evidence
of marking must be shown on the submitted student work. This includes tick marks to indicate
correct work, identification of errors, annotations and comments to explain where and how the
achievement levels were awarded. The moderator’s role is to confirm the teacher’s marks but
where annotations and comments are missing the moderator will have to mark the work without
having any background information and very often it is less likely that a moderator can confirm
all the achievement levels awarded. When annotating work digitally it is better for annotations
to be made on the student work at the point of reference and not collected as an appendix or
preface to the student work. Internal standardisation should take place to ensure consistent
marking.

Higher level paper one

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 17 18 - 34 35 - 45 46 - 58 59 - 71 72 - 84 85 - 100

General comments
On the surface, this paper appeared to be of a relatively straight-forward nature, compared to
recent sessions. There did not seem to be many sections that were inaccessible for a significant
number of candidates. However, fully correct responses to Q8b and Q10c were rarely seen,
even by otherwise strong candidates.

It was not uncommon to see many high scoring scripts throughout the marking period.

Page 5
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Some careless efforts with question 9 were present, indicating there are many candidates that
continue to find the topic of vectors quite challenging.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
Vector geometry, including the vector product and its applications. Complex number
manipulation.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Algebra. Integration. Curve sketching. Logarithmic manipulation.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Section A

Question 1

This provided a generally easy start for the vast majority of candidates. It was only possibly
early slips that led to some unfortunate miscalculations involving 50 .

Question 2

Part (a) of this question was usually answered correctly. Candidates often went on to correctly
find the points of intersections, thus gaining full marks. A small number of candidates incorrectly
x
attempted to solve the equation  1   x  2 in an effort to find a second point of
2
intersection.

Question 3

Part (a) was convincingly handled, and it was pleasing to see so few errors when calculating
3
0.125 . The remainder of the question was also competently handled, though some
candidates chose incorrectly to divide their expression in part (b)( i ) by 5 .

Question 4

This was thought to be a straight forward question, though many candidates chose to expend
a lot of time on this by expressing y as a single fraction, before attempting the quotient rule.
Unfortunately, a number of these candidates neglected to square their denominator, and thus
lost a number of marks from that point forward.

Otherwise, a pleasing number of correct answers to this question were seen.

Page 6
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 5

It was perhaps to be expected, that although the majority of candidates determined the correct
value for the common difference, they only considered the first two or three terms of the series.
It was required to consider the difference of two consecutive general terms to gain full marks.
Therefore, a large number of candidates dropped at least three marks on this question.

Question 6

Part (a) was answered very well by almost all candidates, who are clearly adept at applying the
product rule. Part (b) was less successful, and it was possible that the instruction to consider
the result from part (a) may have confused some. Nevertheless, full marks were available to
those who chose to answer this part from scratch, and many did so successfully.

Question 7

Many correct answers to this question were seen. Those who knew to apply the correct
multiplying factor to both numerator and denominator often went on to score full marks. A very
small number chose to pursue methods which were clearly incorrect, though seemed to waste
a lot of time by manipulating evidently incorrect mathematics.

Part (b) was thought to be straightforward and appeared to be so for the majority of candidates.

Question 8

A majority of candidates obtained the required answer of 2arctan x (though a small number
left their answer as 2 arctan u ). Many of these went on to obtain the answer of
arctan 3  arctan1 in part (b). Further progress was rarely seen, only by candidates who knew
how to manipulate this type of expression. A small number offered the idea that arctan1  0 .

Section B

Question 9

Many candidates answered part (a) successfully, though there were some fairly long methods
seen in (a)(ii) when it came to rearranging the given information to show d  a  c  b .

Part (b) posed few problems.

A surprising number of candidates made no further progress, due to part (c) requiring the vector
product. In many cases, this was done with less care than might have been expected.

The better candidates were able to see their way through parts (d) and (e).

Of those that reached part (f), most gained the first two marks, but some then failed to tackle
the last part of the question, possibly misinterpreting what was being asked.

Page 7
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 10

On the whole, this proved to be a very accessible question for the majority of candidates. Parts
(a) and (b) were answered well, and it is pleasing to see many candidates writing down their
asymptote equations, though some offered x  2 or y  2 , which was not accepted.

Correct answers for part (c) were rarely, if ever, seen. It was felt that from those who gained
marks from this section, many seemed to be fortuitous.

Question 11

Good candidates were able to make significant progress with this question. Parts (a) and (b)
were often convincingly answered. Even those who obtained different solutions in part (b) often
went on to gain full follow through marks in part (c).

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
This paper did not seem to cause too many specific difficulties on this occasion.

Vectors continue to be a problem for some candidates. Although it is easy to suggest a greater
proportion of time should be spent teaching this topic, it is also recognized that it is generally
the most able that are able to demonstrate mathematical ability in this topic.

Higher level paper two

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 14 15 - 29 30 - 40 41 - 53 54 - 65 66 - 78 79 - 100

General comments
A slightly different paper, with some extremes regarding the difficulty of questions ranging from
very simple to quite difficult. Lots of probability and functions but in general well balanced. Some
scope for using more sophisticated features of the GDC, mainly though basic GDC skills were
tested. The inclusion of mathematical induction on Paper 2 came as a surprise.

Page 8
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
• The setting of proofs and reasoning in mathematical induction.
• Solving equations with a parameter.
• Solving factorial equations.
• Solving inverse normal distribution problems.
• Sketching curves over appropriate domains showing main features and copying the
shape correctly.
• Interpretation of problems set in an unfamiliar way.
• The concept of mode of Poisson distribution.
• Applying binomial distribution concepts in unfamiliar situations.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
• Implicit differentiation.
• Kinematics.
• Basic operations with complex numbers.
• Trigonometric identities.
• Product and chain rule.
• Basic probability.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1

Part (a) was in general well answered by most, with few numerical errors present, which should
have been avoided by making full use of the GDC.

Part (b) most candidates found the modulus correctly, however, some missed the instruction
that the exact value was required.

Part (c) was in general well answered and given to four decimal places either in radians or in
degrees as instructed in the question.

Question 2

Mostly quite well answered in setting up three simultaneous equations and solving on GDC.
Some candidates attempted solving algebraically with various degrees of success. Some
students unfortunately went for long division and lost precious time and made mistakes. Not
many candidates chose the most efficient way by equating coefficients.

Question 3

In part (a) only some candidates could correctly label, with numbers, and shade a diagram that
represented the given normal distribution.

Page 9
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Part (b) was very well done by the majority of candidates.

In part (c) very few candidates could work with the inverse normal problem and set up an
appropriate equation. Many candidates were unable to start on this question, others tried
guessing the answer.

Question 4

Part (a) was attempted by most candidates taking various approaches. Simple right-angled
trigonometry was required to obtain the answer with some candidates choosing a much more
complicated method such as sine and cosine rules which was not necessary. Many candidates
misinterpreted the question looking at the diagram not drawn to scale rather than reading the
given worded information.

Part (b) was well done by those who had the correct answers in part (a); not many could go
successfully with their incorrect answers; using incorrect angle or incorrect formulas.

Question 5

Part (a) was done very well by many candidates who used the combinations formula and
simplified factorials arriving at the correct cubic polynomial. Some candidates made errors in
their simplifications.

Part (b) was well answered by most candidates, many solving their equations on the GDC.
Some candidates failed to give the answer as an integer thus losing the final mark. Some tried
to re-arrange their equation before solving on the GDC which is not a recommended strategy
here leading to more mistakes.

Question 6

In general, rather poorly attempted with only few candidates awarded full marks for this
question. Many candidates were unable to set up the proof correctly and clearly justify every
step. It is a formal and rigorous proof and requires proper reasoning and justification even if
some steps may seem to be obvious it still requires proper justification. Many candidates failed
to state the truth assumption adequately; some tried to work backwards or using repetition
which rarely lead to success. There were some very good scripts showing clear logic and critical
thinking, and when this happened it showed that the question was not that difficult algebraically.
The final conclusion was often missing the implication statement.

Question 7

Part (a) was done very well, nearly all candidates were able to solve for zero and use GDC to
obtain the correct value for time.

Part (b) was also very well done, most candidates applied correctly the product and chain rule
to find acceleration and then used their GDC to find the value of acceleration for their answer
from part (a).

Page 10
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 8

Part (a) appeared to be very difficult to many candidates, only few could reason the smallest
value of n from the mean formula.

In part (b) many candidates could only write down the correct formula with the given information
but were unable to use their GDC to solve.

Question 9

Part (a)(i) was well done.

Part (a)(ii) was poorly done. Only a few candidates justified that mode is 5 either listing the
probabilities or reasoning correctly from the mean.

Part (b) was in general very well done with many candidates arriving at the correct answer using
either method.

Question 10

Part (a)(i) was a mixture of very nice symmetrical graphs drawn over the required domain with
clear indication of scale and domain and some other incorrect graphs drawn in an incorrect
window on the GDC or using degrees or involving other mistakes.

Parts (a)(ii)-(iv) were mainly attempted but the justifications were often inaccurate, many
candidates mixed up the vertical and horizontal line tests, some tried very sophisticated
explanations when a simple one is always the best.

Part (b) was very well done, most candidates used the compound angle formulae for tangent
and were able to arrive at the given answer showing clearly all steps.

Part (c) was very poorly attempted. Only a few candidates recognised the correct horizontal
asymptote, gave its equation and drew it on the graph. Many candidates drew the graph over
an incorrect domain.

In part (d)(i) most candidates had a good start using either method but then many got lost in
incorrect algebraic manipulation. A number of candidates tried to apply the sum and product of
roots instead of a quadratic formula, going in circles and failing to obtain the correct answer.

Part (d) (ii) caused problems with the correct algebraic reasoning. Many candidates had the
correct expression for the sum of the roots but were unable to give proper justification using
algebra or graphing.

Question 11

Part (a) was probably the best answered question on the paper with nearly all candidates
scoring full marks. Considering that the answer was given it was easy for many to correct their
mistakes in using implicit differentiation.

Page 11
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Part (b)(i) was reasonably well done with many candidates obtaining the correct coordinates of
points P and Q either as exact values or decimal approximations.

However, many lost marks in part (b)(ii) as decimal approximations are not acceptable in ‘show
that’ questions.

Part (c) was attempted by many to a point of equating the derivative to negative 1 and trying
some algebraic manipulation. Many failed to factorise their expression thus only solving part of
the equation. Considering that it was the last part on the exam, it was pleasing to see a number
of fully correct answers scoring full marks.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
It would assist candidates if teachers would emphasize the following to their students:
• Candidates need to recognise when they need to use algebra and calculus to gain
marks and when using their GDC is a more effective and errorless way.
• Candidates need to be shown good practice how to provide correct reasoning and
proper justification.
• More care needs to be taken when copying a graph from GDC, particularly with the
correct shape, paying attention to symmetry, marking axes intercepts and domain,
approaching the asymptotes and sketching over the given domain. Candidates need to
be aware that a sketch still requires precision.
• Read the questions and highlight key points (such as accuracy required) and be familiar
with command terms.
• Draw more diagrams to illustrate solutions and refer to them in solutions.
• To teach students how to re-evaluate methods when something goes wrong and how
to check if their solution is reasonable.
• Make sure the candidates understand the use of radians when calculus is involved with
trigonometry and when sketching graphs involving circular functions.
• Candidates should be encouraged to choose the simple method for example using the
remainder theorem rather than long division or right-angled trigonometry when
applicable rather than sine and cosine rules.
• Learn definitions word for word and quote them when applicable. This refers to
definition of a function, condition for an inverse function to exist and similar.

Higher level paper three: Discrete mathematics

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-6 7 - 12 13 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 28 29 - 33 34 - 50

Page 12
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
There were too many candidates who had not prepared sufficiently for this paper. For example,
not knowing what the hand-shaking lemma was. They had difficulties whenever proof was
involved.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Candidates generally did well on solving the Fibonacci sequence.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1

(a) Both parts reasonable well answered.

(b) Some confusion between edges and vertices but generally fine.

(c) Explanation in (i) often missing parts even if the solution was then correct. They either knew
the method or they did not.

Question 2

(a) Most candidates knew this but several did not mention that p was a prime.

(b)(i) Not answered well, there was misunderstanding involving division when we are working
with integers. (ii) Better response but often the “hence” was ignored.

Question 3

(a)(i) and (ii) Well answered. (iii) Graph was drawn but often the explanation was poor.

(b) For a Discrete paper it was surprising how many candidates could not quote the hand-
shaking lemma even though sometimes they could go on to use it in (ii).

(c) Very badly answered. A few complete answers but most candidates were not applying the
hand-shaking lemma.

Question 4

(a) Not particularly well answered although many candidates had the first couple of marks.

(b) Often full marks were given here although sometimes the reasoning left much to be desired

Page 13
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 5

(a) Well answered with many complete solutions.

(b) Not answered well. Some candidates did not have a clear idea of the proposition that they
were attempting to prove. Many did not realise that two base cases were required. There was
poor logic shown when induction should be a very rigorous method.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
The rubrics at the top of page 2 should be known beforehand. Especially: “Full marks are not
necessarily awarded for a correct answer with no working. Answers must be supported by
working and/or explanations.” A full trial exam is essential, which is correctively marked to point
out logical flaws.

For the graph theory question there is absolutely no need to draw the graphs on graph paper.
There are very technical terms in graph theory “path”, walk” etc. The IB provides a glossary of
terms and candidates should be aware of this.

This is not a paper that a candidate can just walk into and expect to do well in, if they have not
studied the syllabus and are not aware of the methods and notation. Candidates need to be
able to use the results that they know to provide proofs. It would not be sufficient just to be able
to carry out the standard algorithms.

Higher level paper three: Calculus

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-6 7 - 12 13 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 31 32 - 36 37 - 50

General comments
This examination was considered a reasonably accessible test of a candidate’s knowledge of
calculus. Although a good percentage of candidates demonstrated sound knowledge of the
syllabus, it was also apparent that a significant number of candidates were not sufficiently
prepared and performed poorly.

Page 14
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
Applying the comparison test on a non-standard application of the p-series test.

Employing incorrect notation, mainly confusing sequences and series, when reasoning why an
infinite series is divergent.

Knowing the difference between the radius of convergence and the interval of convergence of
a power series and determining the interval of convergence of a power series.

Finding the derivative of a transformed absolute value function.

Use of Riemann sums to find an upper bound for a series.

Evaluating the constant term, in terms of a parameter, for the particular solution of a first-order
differential equation.

Applying the solution of a differential equation to assist in determining the condition for which a
curve y  f  x  has two stationary points.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well prepared

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared

 3x 
n

Applying the ratio test to determine that 
n  0 ln  n  2 
converges if 3x  1 .

Understanding the requirements for a function and its derivative to be continuous at x  x0 .

Using core integral calculus skills and techniques to calculate the value of an improper integral.

Using Riemann sums to illustrate series bounds of a convergent improper integral.

Using core differential calculus skills and techniques, e.g. applying the chain rule, implicit
differentiation, and the product rule.

Finding the Maclaurin series of a function f ( x).

Using given and derived differential equations to show that f  x  has a given Maclaurin series.

Finding and using an integrating factor to assist in solving a first-order linear differential equation
that contained a parameter p.

Page 15
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1

Part (a) was not answered as well as had been anticipated with a large number of superficial
answers offered. Many candidates knew that a harmonic series is divergent and that they
needed to compare the given series with a suitable harmonic series. However, a large number
of candidates were unsuccessful in formulating appropriate statements that link these two. Of
those that did manage to correctly link n and n  2 , a large number of candidates
unfortunately used sequence notation rather than series notation. These candidates were prone
1 1
to stating that either or were divergent. A number of candidates made reference to
n n2

1
n
n0
being divergent. Many candidates failed to recognize that ln n is undefined at n  0 .

Some candidates attempted to use other tests, mainly the limit comparison test instead of the
comparison test as stated in the question. A few candidates confused limit notation with series
notation.

In part (b), a significant number of candidates were able to use the ratio test to determine that
 3x 
n



n  0 ln  n  2 
converges if 3 x  1 . In achieving this result however, a number of candidates

ln  n  2 
adopted a laborious approach to calculating lim  1 with some demonstrating a
n  ln  n  3
lack of understanding of logarithm laws. A number of candidates did not go on to consider the
1 1 1
endpoints x   and x  . Most candidates that did consider x  recognised that
3 3 3

1
 ln  n  2
n 0
is divergent from part (a). Often it was the best candidates who were able to

 1
n

1
demonstrate that when x   ,
3

n  0 ln  n  2 
is (conditionally) convergent by the alternating

1 1
series test and thus determining  x as the required interval of convergence.
3 3
Unfortunately, as with part (a), a number of candidates considered sequences rather than
series.

 3x 
n n
Other errors included use of 3 x rather than , omission of the modulus sign or making

an error when attempting to solve 3 x  1 for x .

Page 16
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 2

This question was reasonably well done with most candidates understanding the requirements
for a function and its derivative to be continuous at x  x0 . However, a number of candidates
did not explain their work carefully, e.g. neglecting to use left and right limits. Despite this, most
candidates were able to use the continuity condition to obtain 4a  2b  1 . When considering
the differentiability condition, a large number of candidates had difficulty in obtaining the correct
derivative of x  2  1, x  2 with a significant majority obtaining 4a  b  1 as their second
equation rather than 4a  b  1 . This led to a large number of candidates obtaining 4 marks
out of 6.

Question 3

In part (a), the majority of candidates were able to determine the value of the improper integral.
A number of candidates lost a mark for leaving the upper limit as  throughout rather than
1
using a limit. Some candidates were not able to calculate x 3
dx correctly. A small number of

candidates attempted to use their GDC to determine the value of the improper integral.

Part (b) was reasonably well done with a good understanding of Riemann sums shown. Some
candidates produced diagrams of poor quality that were difficult to mark.

Part (c) was reasonably well done with a good number of candidates identifying the link between
parts (a) and (b). Some candidates obtained a follow through mark from part (a).

Part (d) was a more challenging question part for candidates. A number of candidates were
unable to modify the part (b) inequality or link part (d) to part (b). Those who answered part (d)
often used the method of changing the lower limit rather than adding a new term on both sides
of the inequality.

Question 4

Part (a), which tested chain rule differentiation, was generally well done. A small number of
candidates failed to use the chain rule.

In part (b), a good majority of candidates were able to use the product rule and implicit
differentiation to show the required result. A few candidates failed to read the question and
attempted to differentiate their first derivative found in part (a).

Part (c) was generally well answered by those who answered part (b) correctly. A number of
candidates failed to show the necessary working to find the values of f
 3
0 and f
 4
0 .
Some candidates ignored the instruction ‘hence show that’ and attempted to work backwards
from the given answer. As the Maclaurin series for f  x  was given, these candidates needed
to convince the examiner that they knew what they were doing.

Page 17
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Part (d) was not done as well as anticipated. Many candidates recognized the need to substitute
1 13
x into the part (c) given answer to obtain . However only a small number of candidates
2 48
13
managed to see the link to the original function and multiply by 36 to obtain an
48
approximation for π . A larger than expected number of candidates were unable to determine
2

2
 1
the value of  arcsin  .
 2

Question 5

Part (a) was reasonably well done with a large majority of candidates attempting to find an
integrating factor. Some candidates calculated an incorrect integrating factor due to incorrect
algebraic simplification and hence lost access to subsequent accuracy marks. Other candidates
who had obtained the first 6 marks either made an error when attempting to find C in terms of
p or lost the last accuracy mark by neglecting to multiply though by x . In the latter case,
y 1 1
having obtained  x p   C , these candidates correctly determined that
x p 1 x
1 1 p 1 1
C but then gave y  x   (or equivalent) as their final answer.
p 1 p 1 x p 1
Other errors included neglecting to specify an arbitrary constant and not attempting to evaluate
the arbitrary constant.

A small number of candidates recognized that the differential equation was homogeneous and
used the substitution y  vx . Some of these candidates were able to successfully solve the
differential equation via this method.

Part (b)(i) was reasonably well attempted with both solution methods seen in roughly equal
numbers. Candidates who made an error in part (a) only had access to the method mark. Often
however, candidates who answered part (a) correctly were able to answer part (b) (i) correctly.

Part (b)(ii) was identified as a 6/7 discriminator and expectedly proved to be challenging for
most candidates. It was rare for candidates to offer sufficient reasoning as to why there were
only two solutions when p was odd. Some, usually stronger candidates, gained one mark for
p is odd. Only a few candidates considered the two cases, namely when p  1 is
stating that
even and when p  1 is odd.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
Students need to have a good foundation in core calculus skills and knowledge.

Students need to be familiar with all syllabus topics.

Page 18
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Students need to be familiar with all the tests for proving the convergence or divergence of an
infinite series.

Teachers should emphasize the need to use correct notation when representing a series.
1
Students need to be dissuaded from making statements such as ‘ is divergent’.
n

Teachers need to emphasize the importance of studying the endpoints when determining the
interval of convergence of a power series.

Teachers need to emphasize the use of correct reasoning and notation when considering
continuity, differentiability and improper integrals.

Teachers need to emphasize the integral as a limit of a sum and illustrate lower and upper
Riemann sums graphically.

Students need to read questions carefully and understand the implication of words such as
‘hence’ which indicate a connection to a previous question part.

Teachers must emphasize the need to show appropriate reasoning and clear methods/steps
leading to the correct answer in a "show that" question.

Teachers should advise candidates to read examination questions carefully and write legibly
as this will greatly help examiners with their marking.

Teachers should dissuade candidates from using graph paper in examinations. Scanned scripts
containing graphs/diagrams on graph paper are often difficult to mark.

Higher level paper three: Sets, relations and groups

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-8 9 - 16 17 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 50

General comments
Most candidates were able to figure out the answers if they knew how to approach the
questions. Careless mistakes were not common. This was an improvement from last year.

Some work presented by candidates was rather illegible, and the work was carelessly
presented. Presentation of work needs to be given more importance.

Page 19
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The presentation of the Spanish scripts is much better in general. These candidates tend to
write full answers and explain everything.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
Candidates had some difficulty in applying definitions they clearly knew to specific examples in
'show that' questions, namely showing that a given relation was reflexive and symmetric and
that a given function defined in the set of the integers was bijective.

Most candidates also had difficulties in deducing that a set with n elements has 2n subsets.

Many candidates showed difficulties in using correct mathematical notation and overall the
mathematical communication of reasoning was not satisfactory.

Many candidates showed difficulty in finding a counterexample to show that a relation was not
transitive.

A surprising number of candidates seemed unfamiliar with cycle notation for permutations.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Candidates had good awareness of key definitions contained in this option. They generally
showed good ability in answering questions on set operations. They were familiar with
properties of equivalence relations, definition of homomorphism, how to find the expression of
the composition of two functions, determine the order of a permutation group and order of an
element of a group, and could satisfactorily verify whether that given binary operations on given
sets satisfied group axioms using Cayley tables.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1

The majority of candidates answered this question well.

In (a), a few candidates tried to prove associativity without observing that it was assumed in the
question. This property was missed out in a couple of cases. Several candidates attempted to
prove the existence of an inverse for each element using examples showing a lack of
awareness of what is required to show that the property holds in every case.

In (b) some candidates missed the instruction and did not refer to the Cayley table; in some
cases, candidates attempted to establish commutativity using an example.

In (c)(i), most candidates could work out the order of each element in the given group. A
common mistake was order of 6 being 2.

Page 20
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

In (d) most candidates constructed the Cayley table and used it to identify a property of a group
that failed. A number of candidates gave a number of different answers to it not being a group.

Question 2

Majority of candidates answered well in part (a).

(a)(ii) A few candidates did not understand the meaning of “verify” and tried to prove the
inequality. In a few cases candidates attempted to divide the elements of a set by the elements
of the other set.

(b) This was poorly attempted by most candidates including the strong ones. Very few
candidates scored full marks on this question. For those who managed to say that there were
two possibilities for each element whether it was included or not in a certain subset, they tended
to miss out the case of n  0 . This was also true among the few candidates who attempted
induction. For those who tried to use the sum of binomial coefficients, most of them could not
see the relation between the binomial expansion and 2n .

Question 3

This question was attempted satisfactorily on the whole.

Most candidates knew the definition of reflexive and symmetric relations but their presentation
of proofs was sloppy. Some simply stated the results without realizing what they had to show
to score marks.

The majority of the candidates knew they had to find a counterexample to show a relation was
not transitive. Most candidates managed to figure out a case that worked, but many missed the
final R mark for not stating the reason explicitly.

Question 4

There was a mixed response on this question. Some weak candidates answered well on parts
(a) and (c).

The majority of candidates managed to work out the correct answer. This was problematic as
a lot of candidates did not know how to generate the subgroup H from p1 and p2 . The
majority of candidates realized there were p1 p2 and p2 p1 . There was evidence to suggest
that a number of candidates do not really understand the theory behind subgroups of finite
groups and only a small proportion could figure out all 6 elements of the group. Unfortunately,
several candidates seem to have missed the instruction about giving the answers in cycle form
or had trouble in using this form of representation of permutations.

Almost all candidates were able to state the condition to be satisfied for a homomorphism but
there was variable success after that. Quite a few candidates showed that p1 p2 not equal to
f ( p1 ) f ( p2 ) .

Page 21
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 5

Part (a) was reasonably well attempted but (b) was disappointing.

(a) Majority of candidates understood composite functions and scored the first two marks. More
than half of the candidates then consider the parity of n and arrived at the conclusion. Common
(1)( 1) as ( 1) (  n ) , and missing steps to the final answer.
n
mistakes were mistaking

(b) This part was poorly attempted. Very few candidates achieved full marks. Majority of those
who scored good marks considered the parity of n . A significant proportion had no idea of how
to approach the question. Some tried to work out the gradient function of f (n) without realizing
it was a function defined in a discrete set.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
The formal presentation of a proof needs to be stressed as the performance was poor among
candidates this session. The meaning of verifying needs to be clarified as well. Students need
to know that they have to state reasons explicitly in order to score marks in the examinations.
Teachers should remind their students that on examinations only the first answer will be marked
unless crossed out. Teachers should encourage the students to solve more IB past papers and
involve students in self-marking using the IB mark schemes. This will help the students to
understand the requirements.

Differentiation of functions defined in a discrete set is another issue that teachers need to
address and clarify when teaching future candidates. There was good knowledge on the
definition of a group, reflexivity and symmetry of a relation, injection and surjection but how to
apply these definitions within the contexts of the problems needs to be strengthened. Examples
of different natures should be introduced so that students are more confident in handling
unfamiliar situations.

Higher level paper three: Statistics and probability

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-7 8 - 15 16 - 23 24 - 29 30 - 35 36 - 41 42 - 50

Page 22
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
Some candidates seem unable to grasp the concept of estimation with some solutions not even
involving the expectation operator E .

Some candidates are prone to misusing their calculator, particularly in finding normal
probabilities.

The concept of critical regions is not properly understood by some candidates.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Many candidates appeared confident in dealing with correlation although it was disturbing to
see that many candidates seemed to believe that covariance and correlation were one and the
same thing.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1

This question was well answered in general although, as usual, there were candidates who
n
seemed unable to differentiate between nX and X
i 1
i . As a result, in (c), some candidates

defined W as 2 X  3Y which often led to an incorrect variance. It was disappointing to note

that a minority of candidates obtained incorrect probabilities from their calculators even though
the mean and variance were correctly calculated. This was sometimes due to inputting the
variance instead of the standard deviation.

Question 2

This question was well answered by the majority of candidates. In (b), most candidates stated
that the series for G (t ) was geometric and gave the first term and common ratio before
proceeding to the given result. Candidates who went straight from the series for G (t ) to the
given result were penalised. Some candidates answered (d) by using the standard result that,
1
for Geo(p), the mean is and this was accepted because no particular method was prescribed.
p

Question 3

Many candidates obtained the correct critical values in (b) but then gave the critical region as
[9.32,9.68] instead of the complement of this. Part (c) was reasonably well answered by many
candidates. In (d), some candidates failed to realise that the sample size was now 6.

Page 23
May 2018 subject reports Mathematics, Mathematics HL TZ2

Question 4

Most candidates wrote down correct hypotheses in (a). The most common errors, not seen too
often, were giving a 2-sided H 1 , using r instead of  , or giving verbal hypotheses, eg
H0 : X and Y are independent. Part (b)(i) was generally well done although some candidates
gave incorrect degrees of freedom. In (c)(i), the most common error was jumping to the final
answer without justifying the intermediate steps. Solutions to (c)(ii) were generally poor.
Common errors were to assume, without justification, that independence implies that Cov = 0
and, curiously, that the correlation coefficient is actually equal to the covariance.

Question 5

Part (a) was well done by many candidates although the presentation was sometimes poor.
X 
The most concise solution seen was simply E( X )  np therefore E   p.
n 

1
In (b)(i), many candidates managed to show that E(U )  E( X )  E( X 2 ) but some failed to
n
Var( X )   E( X )  . Some candidates seemed
2 2
realise that E( X ) could then be equated to
unable to differentiate between P and p , often due to poor writing, and this usually caused
confusion. It was, however, pleasing to see that many candidates wrote down a correct
unbiased estimate for Var( X ) in (b)(ii) without necessarily having given a correct solution to
(b)(i).

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
Many candidates completely ignore the rubric on the examination paper stating that ‘Unless
otherwise stated in the question, all numerical answers should be given exactly or correct to
three significant figures’. Markschemes are sometimes tolerant of deviations from this
requirement but candidates should be aware that marks can be lost by giving answers to the
wrong level of accuracy.

n
Candidates need to understand the difference between nX and X .
i 1
i

Candidates need to be aware that full marks are not necessarily given for correct answers. It is
usually essential to give the mathematical justification.

Page 24