Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

Summer 2019

Pearson Edexcel International A Level

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

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

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

Summer 2019
Publications Code WFM02_01_1906_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2019
 IAL Mathematics: Further Pure 2 June 2019

Specification WFM02/01

Introduction

This paper proved to be a good test of student knowledge and understanding. It discriminated well
between the different ability levels. There were many accessible marks available to candidates who
were confident with topics such as inequalities, differential equations, Taylor series, complex numbers,
series summations and polar coordinates.

Reports on Individual Questions

Question 1

This question proved to be accessible to most candidates and it was a very good source of marks for
the vast majority. It was rare to see anything other than a clear attempt at solving at least one of the
required quadratics in order to arrive at, at least one of the critical values. Candidates who attempted
to find the roots of the LHS (±√6) usually ended up with an incorrect solution. While some
candidates resorted to symmetry to find the critical values most knew how to deal with the modulus
sign successfully in order to arrive at the correct critical values. Tables of signs and sketches were
equally common when trying to decide on the correct final solution, but it was also a common error
among candidates to try and incorporate all the critical values in their final answer without resorting
to a simple sketch to ascertain which ones were consistent with their diagram. Only a very small
number chose to square both sides to produce a quartic and only the most competent candidates
achieved a fully correct solution from this method. Some candidates made careless mistakes with, for
example, 2 < 𝑥 instead of 2 > 𝑥. The use of non-strict inequalities in the final answer was rare. Set
notation was not commonly used.

Question 2

This question on a transformation using complex numbers was also a good source of marks for many
candidates. Way 1 on the mark scheme proved far more popular than Way 2. A very small number
made errors in making z the subject of the formula. Weaker candidates were often unsure about how to
progress but most others replaced w with u + iv and used a correct method to multiply numerator and
denominator by a suitable conjugate. Some were unable to then identify that since the transformation
was of the imaginary axis, the real part of the resulting expression needed to be set equal to zero. For
those who knew how to make progress, common errors were mainly with the resulting simplification
or sign errors when equating the real part to zero, or in equating the real and imaginary parts. Way 2
was not an efficient method on this occasion and the small number who chose this method were often
unable to eliminate y from their equations.
Those who obtained a correct circle equation invariably proceeded to deduce the correct coordinates of
its centre and its radius although a few candidates could not complete the square correctly and it was
more common to see a correctly completed square from an incorrectly simplified equation.

Question 3

Q03 involved using the method of differences. It was very rare to see any errors in obtaining the correct
partial fractions in part (a). The scoring in part (b) was slightly more mixed. The general method was
widely known (and for the most part well executed) but some candidates failed to notice that the
1
summation started at r = 2, usually leading to the indeterminate form of 0 (computed as 0 or 1)
appearing in their non-cancelling terms. Some of these candidates were able to recover by subtracting
the r = 1 terms later. Those who had obtained terms of the correct form usually scored the second
method mark with an appropriate attempt to combine these terms. The full five marks were commonly
awarded. Part (c) had the command word “Hence” and required the given result from part (b) to be used.
Unfortunately, some candidates chose to repeat the differences work from earlier and some went on to
achieve the correct result but did not receive any credit as they hadn’t used the ‘hence’ requested in the
question. The correct expression for S3n was widely seen although some then subtracted Sn rather than
Sn-1. A few found the resulting algebra rather intimidating – usually making the mistake of needlessly
multiplying out all the brackets.

Question 4

This first order differential equation question was a little more discriminating. Most knew to divide
through by cos x although this was not always carried out successfully, in particular with the terms on
the right hand side leading to a common error of failing to divide the final term by 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑥 and arriving at
∫ 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑥 instead of ∫ 𝑠𝑒𝑐 2 𝑥 for the final term. Correctly obtaining sec x as the integrating factor was
common. A small number of candidates remain confused about how to correctly apply the integrating
factor – the most common error being the failure to multiply Q(x) by I. Those who had obtained
∫ (2 cos x sin x – 3 sec2 x) dx were usually able to integrate successfully. Most candidates recognised
1
∫ 2𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑥𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑥 as ∫ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝑥 and obtained − 2 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝑥 and it was rare to see this evaluated as
−𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝑥 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝑥. Only a small number failed to divide through by sec x (or multiply by cos x) to obtain
y as a function of x at the end.

In part (b), the method mark was often scored, but there were a few slips obtaining the constant. A few
obtained the correct constant but then failed to place it correctly into the particular solution. A common
√3 √3 −3𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑥
error was to assert that 3√3 + 3 2 = 3 2 . The simplification of 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑥
= −3𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑥 caused problems
for some when attempting to evaluate their constant of integration.

Question 5

Q05 involved finding the fourth roots of a complex number. In part (a) the correct value for r was almost
always achieved but many had an incorrect strategy in obtaining the argument. Some gave a correct
equivalent value for 𝜃 but it was not in the specified range. A very small number went straight to an r
(cos𝜃 – i sin𝜃) form. Candidates who obtained the incorrect argument in part (a) would be advised to
sketch a diagram with the point correctly positioned so that they can interpret the argument correctly

Part (b) saw good scoring on the whole. A few candidates did not introduce ±2kπ at any stage and could
only obtain one root. Others divided their angle by four first and then introduced the ±2kπ while other
𝑘𝜋
candidates got into a muddle when attempting ± 2 to their arguments. Those proceeding correctly were
generally able to obtain all four roots in trigonometric form but occasional slips were made converting
into a + ib form, for example writing things like
−1 + √3 and −𝑖 − √3 instead of −𝑖 + √3.

Question 6

This question on a Taylor series expansion produced a surprisingly mixed response. The general method
was well known but many succumbed to errors with the required differentiations, with some failing to
deploy the chain and product rules correctly. The second derivative proved more problematic with a
significant minority of candidates incorrectly producing an 𝛼𝑥(1 + 𝑥 2 )−5/2 term. Those who obtained
the correct derivatives were usually able to then produce correct numerical expressions for the values
at x = 1. A very small number of errors were seen in applying a correct Taylor series. Candidates who
quoted the correct expansion formula usually obtained the M mark when substituting in their values,
but it was evident that an over reliance on calculators left many unable to correctly simplify the resulting
expression for the third coefficient which left them with an inexact form. The final mark was
occasionally withheld for an unsimplified answer or in cases where candidates had reverted to decimals.
3
1
It was interesting to see the common error amongst candidates of interpreting −(2)−2 as − 3 instead
√2
−1
of 3 .
(√2)

Question 7

This question on a second order differential equation saw an encouraging number of completely correct
dy d2 y
solutions. Scoring was good in part (a). Most knew to obtain dx and dx2 from y = vx and then substitute
to obtain the given answer. Those who worked with other derivatives generally did not make much
dv d2 v dy d2 y
progress although a small number who obtained dx and dx2 were able to use these to find dx and dx2. A
very small number of candidates substituted into (II) to derive (I).

A few errors were seen in forming the auxiliary equation in part (b) with m2 – m = 0 rather than m2 – 1
= 0 occasionally and the correct equation was sometimes solved incorrectly to give
m = ± i rather than ±1. The correct form of complementary function was usually obtained although a
few gave the form for equal roots. The mark for a correct particular integral of –2 was widely scored
although a small number needlessly started with forms such as 𝜆 + 𝜇x or 𝜆 + 𝜇x + 𝜈x2. Most added their
CF and PI but some were not working with v here and gave this expression as their final answer.
However, the correct solution in the form y = f(x) was widely seen.
In part (c), the method was again clear to most candidates although the product rule was not always
dy
used to obtain dx. Most obtained two equations in A and B but the algebra required to solve them
simultaneously often led to error. Candidates persisting with their “v =” form were penalised further in
this part.

Question 8

The final question on polar coordinates was a good source of marks in part (a) but proved more
discriminating in (b).

Part (a) required finding the length of OP where point P was the point of contact of a tangent parallel
d
to the initial line. Most realised they needed to solve dθ (r sin𝜃) = 0 although a small number thought
d
solving dθ (r cos𝜃) = 0 was required. Most obtained and differentiated r sin 𝜃 correctly but it proved
more difficult to obtain the correct three term quadratic in sin 𝜃. Those who obtained the correct three
term quadratic generally proceeded to find the correct value of r, usually by finding 𝜃 first, although a
few expressed cos2𝜃 in terms of sin𝜃.

In part (b), most used the correct area formula and squared correctly but the resulting term of
2sin𝜃cos2𝜃 proved challenging to integrate. Most used cos2𝜃 = 2cos2𝜃 – 1 and then integrated 4
sin𝜃cos2𝜃 although a small number used the sum and product formula to obtain sin3𝜃 – sin𝜃. The very
small number attempting integration by parts, which needed two applications and rearrangement to
make 2sin𝜃cos2𝜃 the subject, were rarely successful. Some candidates who couldn’t integrate this term
resorted to evaluating it on their calculator and received no further credit. Those who had integrated
successfully, rarely used incorrect limits and the correct exact area was often confidently achieved.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom