Principal Examiner Feedback

Summer 2018

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Mathematics in Context

Paper 1: Comprehension (7MC0/01)

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

Summer 2018
Publications Code 7MC0_01_1806_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2018
Introduction

This is the third time the qualification has been set and students appeared to be better
prepared for a number of topics included in the specification.

The paper was accessible to all students, with all questions attempted by a good proportion of
students and calculations shown clearly by the majority.

The level of engagement with the source booklet appeared to show an improvement on the
standard of work seen last year, with students being more able to draw upon the information
needed to respond to questions successfully. Students also seemed more confident in
selecting the appropriate method to use to answer a question correctly, with many
successfully applying their chosen method.

Questions that require interpretation of results or comments relating to the method used,
amongst other evaluative questions, are still areas of weakness for a large number of students
and should be addressed during teaching of the specification content.

Report on Individual Questions

Question 1

In part (a), many correct answers were seen, with part (i) being slightly more successful than
part (ii). A small number of responses showed the answer to part (ii) being given for part (i),
with some giving the same answer for both parts. This question relied on the use of the source
booklet to extract the correct information to use.

Part (b) was answered very well, with the majority being able to state two comparative
statements about the distribution of males and females and many able to make one valid
comparison to demonstrate the ability to interpret a statistical diagram in context. A small
minority incorrectly stated that the longest bars represented the median age rather than this
showing the modal age. It was pleasing to note how many responses gave both a statement
relating to numerical comparisons and to the shape of the distributions. A few blank
responses were seen.
Question 2

The majority of students were able to use the source booklet to complete the table accurately,
with many continuing to draw a cumulative frequency graph correctly. The most common
cause for a loss of marks was due to an incorrect scale being used for the x-axis, choosing to
use the class intervals of 0-9, 10-19, ... as the marker points and so not using an appropriate
scale. A small number of students used a scale with intervals of 10 and plotted using these
instead of 9, 19, ... etc. The number of learners plotting at the midpoint of the class interval
was lower, with many correctly plotting at the endpoints.

Part (iii) proved difficult for many students as the aim of this question was to recognise how
to deal with an interval that had no endpoint assigned. Only a small number recognised that
90 was not necessarily the greatest age, with some continuing to explain how they overcame
this problem. Many chose to comment about assuming they needed to use the midpoints to
plot points or comment irrelevantly about the growth or trend of the data.

Several approaches were seen with students generally responding well to part (iv). The main
method seen was recognising that the cumulative frequency curve could be used to estimate
by reading the cumulative percentage at 65 years and subtracting from 100. On the whole this
was the most successful method seen and should be encouraged. Less commonly seen, but as
successful, was to use the full data set in the source booklet to answer the question via
addition. Both methods were acceptable and used successfully. A small number of students
who tried to use the table in the question paper, which combined 2 groups from the source
booklet, using a proportion method of finding five ninths of the 60-69 group. Using this
method was generally unsuccessful as most did not complete the calculation, forgetting to
add the percentages for the other 3 groups to this value. Another common error was to forget
to subtract the reading from the cumulative frequency curve from 100, often finding 85% and
not recognising that this was an estimate for the percentage of the population below 65%.
Some did not show their calculation or method used and centres should encourage students to
show all calculations so that method marks may be awarded for answers outside of the
acceptable range.
Question 3

Part (a) was attempted well by many students, with a lot of fully correct responses seen. Of
those who did not gain full marks, most were able to be awarded at least 1 mark for engaging
correctly with a method to calculate an estimate for the number of obese children. Errors
often occurred as a result of misinterpreting the data in the source booklet and working with
two thirds rather than a third due to working with the percentage of 66.6% given for men in
table 2a in the source booklet.

However, the majority of students were able to communicate a valid reason in part (b) to
explain, often using equivalent fractions or percentages to compare 10% with a third, why the
probabilities would not be the same. Explanations were often clear and contained detail to
provide evidence of deep understanding. Occasionally there were errors with accuracy, with
no sensible rounding used and therefore no understanding that an integer value was required
to represent people.

Question 4

The source booklet was interpreted well in this question, with the majority of students
extracting the correct information needed to be able to estimate the population size for 2013.
The most common error was to find 30% of 2.1 million and not recognising that 2.1 million
represented 30% and using a reverse percentage method. A very small minority forgot to put
billions on their final answer, either writing the word billions or multiplying by 107 was
acceptable. Students should be encouraged to read the information in the source book
carefully and highlight the key information when it has been identified.

Question 5

This one mark interpretation question required students to recognise that the percentages
stated only represented proportions of a population and that the population sizes would need
to be equal in order for these proportions to be comparable. The majority of successful
students used their own knowledge of country populations to explain correctly that the UK
had a greater population than Iceland and so would most likely have a greater number of
obese people than Iceland. Students need to develop a deeper level of understanding that
percentages represent proportions and do not automatically allow for direct comparisons
based on percentage values alone.

Question 6

Most students were able to score a mark for a correct substitution in to the formula, some
were then unable to engage fully and could not rearrange and solve to find the least and
greatest weight. The most unsuccessful method was seen by students who used a trial and
improvement method rather than rearranging, with this often leading to the loss of the
accuracy mark. Students should be encouraged to use algebraic manipulation wherever
possible and avoid using a trial and improvement method.
Question 7

It was pleasing to see an increase in the proportion of students who could successfully
calculate the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Many fully correct answers were seen
for part (a), however the spread of marks was variable for this question. Accuracy was
sometimes a problem when finding the sum of the differences in ranking and this was often
due to not engaging with or recognising that the data contained items with tied ranks. Some
recognised that tied ranks needed to be used, such as 12.5 and 12.5 but then continued to rank
using 13 instead of 14. A minority of students still fail to rank the data consistently when
calculating the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, but were able to use the formula
correctly for their figures, thus gaining a mark. Centres are advised that this in an essential
skill for this qualification and should practise application with data that leads to tied rankings.

Whilst most students recognised the correct effect that removing the data for Norway would
have on the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, many failed to give a reason to support
their statement. A simple explanation that implied that Norway was a potential outlier or
referred to the difference being very large was sufficient. A few empty responses were seen.

Question 8

Part (a) relied on students to recognise that a maximum of 75 points still available for the
season meant that there were 3 races left, given that first position in each race scored 25
points. It was disappointing to see that many blank response were seen and less than half of
the students scored the mark.

Most students wrote the correct formula in parts (b) and (c), with part (b) being slightly more
successful. Some gained a mark for stating a partial formula, with the most common error for
both parts being to not include the equals sign.

Question 9

The majority of students demonstrated that they could accurately calculate the standard
deviation in part (a). Most were also able to calculate the mean but more often, this
calculation was omitted, leading to the loss of a mark. The most common error when
calculating the standard deviation was to use denominator of 14, presumably from reading
about 14th place in the source booklet, rather than 18 as stated in the question. Less
commonly seen was incorrect processing when using the standard deviation formula such as
not squaring the denominator when brackets were not used.

Part (b) required a comparison and interpretation of the values for 2015 found in part (a) with
the equivalent statistics from 2014. The majority were awarded a mark for a simple
comparison of values for either the mean or the standard deviation. Most were able to
compare the mean in context but only the minority were able to compare the standard
deviation in context to gain the third mark. A common error when comparing either statistic
in context was to state that a longer time implied they were faster or an improvement.
Question 10

Some students used the formulae given in part (a)(i) efficiently, using correctly identified
upper and lower quartiles, with many students using the table to indicate the key data, and
this was an acceptable method to show that there were no outliers. Of the errors seen, most
were arithmetic due to not being able to process the decimal part of the seconds correctly.
The most successful students converted the times into seconds rather than try to work with a
decimal of a decimal to represent minutes and seconds and this should be encouraged when
the units are unfamiliar. Some calculation errors were seen when calculating the interquartile
range, but method marks were awarded when the student had clearly indicated how their IQR
value had been calculated and went on to use the formulae correctly. The most common
reason for the final mark not being awarded was due to failing to interpret values calculated
and not comparing these to the minimum and maximum data values to ascertain that there
were indeed no outliers.

The box plot in part (a)(ii) was often fully correct or at least partly correct with the main error
often being due to inaccurate plotting. This seemed to be mainly due to identifying an
incorrect quartile or working with a given scale that used unfamiliar time notation. This
could be one area in which centres could help students to improve for future series. A small
minority did not show the tails to indicate the maximum and minimum values.

Part (b) required interpretation and comparison of the distributions, as with these questions in
previous examinations, the answers were variable and most were not given with reference to
the context or misinterpreted a longer time duration as being faster. Students should try to
compare both the median and the spread of the data in context and should use the correct
terminology e.g. median not middle to gain full marks. More often than not, the median was
the only statistic commented upon.
Question 11

Part (a) was answered very well by the majority, with most being awarded full marks. When
marks were occasionally lost by those who attempted to draw the graph, it was often due to
missing labels with the appropriate units or for not plotting all 18 data points accurately, with
some being omitted. Centres would do well to encourage students to tick or cross out once
they have plotted a point so that they do not lose track and include all data points, particularly
when there are many points to plot. It was surprising to see more than expected blank
responses.

The majority of students gained a mark in part (b) for estimating a suitable value using their
graph. However, many did not use a line of best fit to inform their estimate and so were at
risk of losing the mark if the value was outside of the given range. Therefore, students should
be encouraged to draw a line of best fit to support any values stated that require reading from
a graph they have drawn. Of those students who attempted this part of the question, very few
answered the whole question as they often did not comment on the reliability of their
estimate. Suitability could be justified in this case by a simple statement relating to the lap
length given being within the data range plotted or referring to interpolation. It is vital that
students attempt to answer the whole question and should therefore be reminded to read the
whole question carefully, particularly after responding, to check that they have addressed all
points in the question set.

It was pleasing to see an increase in the proportion of students who could successfully
calculate the product moment correlation coefficient accurately in part (c). However, attempts
to answer this question were variable, with just as many blank responses being seen as fully
correct responses. Inaccurate final answers were few and far between and the most successful
students often showed some intermediate steps in their working, therefore less likely to make
input errors when typing a complex calculation into calculators. The interpretation required in
part (d) of the PMCC value often correctly concluded the strength of the correlation was
strong and positive. An interpretation in context was required for the second mark and was
often omitted.
In summary the following advice to centres is offered

• Students should cover all the specification prior to exam entry

• Students should have access to all previous questions, particularly the sample paper
and previous series
• This specification focuses on application of a range of Mathematics set in a range of
contexts. Students should therefore be encouraged to offer a contextualised
interpretation in any question or part question that requires a comparison or
interpretation, even when not explicitly asked to comment in context
• As this is a comprehension paper, students must read all of the question carefully,
extract information from the relevant places and then process it using the appropriate
method. It is easy under these circumstances to lose focus on the question asked and
therefore it is advisable for centres to actively encourage students to check final
answers and ensure they have covered all the points in the question set.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom