Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

October 2020

Pearson Edexcel International A Level

In Pure Mathematics 1 (WMA11)

Paper: 01 Pure Mathematics 1

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 candidates at: www.pearson.com/uk

October 2020
Publications Code WMA11_01_2010_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
General

This paper proved to be a good test of candidates’ ability on the WMA11 content and it was
pleasing to see many candidates demonstrating what they had learned, despite the
extraordinary situation that some may be experiencing. Candidates did find some questions
challenging, although this did not appear to be due to time. Overall, marks were available to
candidates of all abilities and the parts of questions that proved to be the most challenging
were 2(b), 5(ii), 6(c), 7(a) and 8(c).

A number of candidates appeared to lack exam technique and an understanding of the

terminology ‘show that’. Candidates also needed to read questions carefully, so they knew
how to present a final answer in the required form. Highlighting key points in a question,
checking (if time allows) and re-reading questions to check they had included everything
required could be helpful. It was pleasing, however, to see candidates working more
confidently in radians such as on question 2.

Report on individual questions

Question 1

This was a generally well answered question with a large number scoring full marks. Usually
candidates were able to find correct values for b and c, although some struggled with finding the
coefficient of a.

Question 2

This question proved to be challenging for several candidates, which was surprising for an
early question on the paper. This was due to misunderstanding the transformation required.
Candidates were still, however, able to score highly overall.

In part (a), many candidates achieved the first two marks but lost the final A mark. Many
candidates lost this mark because they were unable to find the value of c as they made both
numerical and sign errors. There were some very precise, short, and clear solutions from
more able candidates. However, long, and often incorrect attempts were common.

In part (b), a significant number of candidates solved f ( x) = 0 which did not demonstrate any
understanding of the translation of the function. Some then subtracted the 7 from the constant
term so many found the correct y intercept. Candidates who completed part (a) correctly and
used this form of the equation were often more successful at obtaining the correct roots.
Some candidates correctly used −4 + 12 x − 2 x 2 =0 to find the x intercepts but then divided
by 2 or −2 when attempting to find the height of the triangle. A diagram might have helped
some candidates. The difference between the two roots, to find the length of the base of the
triangle confused some as they thought 3 − 7 was a negative number. The final answer
needed to be given as a surd, whereas some had worked in decimals throughout.

Question 3

This proved to be a straightforward question for many candidates with a significant number
gaining full marks.

In part (a), most candidates used the correct formula for the area of a sector. Many lost a mark
by either failing to show sufficient working to arrive at a given answer, or by using an
incorrect variable (usually θ ). Occasionally degrees were used, with most using a correct
formula.

Part (b)(i) was generally well answered. A small number of candidates used degrees, usually
correctly. Those who attempted to add the area of the two obtuse angled triangles to the given
area generally made fewer errors than those attempting to add the areas of the isosceles
π − 1.6
triangle to the segment. Common errors included using for angle COA and forgetting
2
to add the given area of the sector to their two triangles. A few candidates incorrectly assumed
that the entire shape was a sector of a circle with radius 8 or AC.

Part (b)(ii) was generally well attempted with most candidates recalling and using the cosine
rule correctly, although a few failed to square root their answer. Some forgot to add the arc
AB to their two straight sides to correctly find the perimeter.

Question 4

The majority of candidates made a good attempt at this question with many achieving full
marks. Most chose to substitute for y in the second equation to obtain a quadratic in x, which
was usually correct. A significant number failed to show their full algebraic method to solve
the quadratic and consequently lost marks. The factorised form often did not match their
stated quadratic equation, e.g., 10 x 2 + 18 x − 4 =0 became (5 x − 1)( x + 2) =
0 without the
intermediate step 5 x 2 + 9 x − 2 =0 when the question stated that all stages of working should
be shown. Others stated solutions with no working shown. Those who used the quadratic
formula were expected to show their coefficients substituted correctly to gain full marks.
Most who found values for x substituted to find the corresponding values for y accurately.
Question 5

Candidates found this question particularly challenging, with very few scoring full marks.
Whilst the first part was relatively straight standard, it was the part (ii) which seemed to be a
discriminator between candidates.

In (i), candidates were usually able to sketch=

y f ( x + 2) with few problems. Occasionally
slips were made when indicating the coordinates of where the curve cuts or touches the
coordinates axes, but most scored full marks. Candidates struggled much more with
y= f (− x) and had not realised it was a reflection in the y-axis. Often the local minimum was
still in the third quadrant or was on the y-axis, which meant only one mark could be scored.

Part (ii) was rarely answered correctly. Typically, candidates thought that k = 3 , having
assumed that the maximum point of the graph was on the y-axis. It was surprising that few
substituted in x = 0 , y = 3 into the equation of the curve and then attempt to deduce k from
the resulting equation. Part (b) was much more successful, however, with many being able to
find the exact value of p. Sometimes it was in degrees, which was condoned, and many went
onto find the value of q.

Question 6

This question proved to be one of the most challenging questions on the paper with few
scoring full marks.

In part (a), most candidates correctly applied the method of finding a gradient from two given
points successfully. There were some candidates that chose to set up simultaneous equations
from =y mx + c with the points A and B, which seemed to result in more errors. Typically,
the majority of candidates scored both marks, with only those who did not fully simplify the
fraction, found the equation of the line AB, but not identifying the gradient, or those who
mixed up their x and y coordinates missing out on both marks.

In part (b), the majority of candidates found the midpoint of AB, used the gradient of a
perpendicular line and successfully found the equation of l. However, they rarely gave the
equation in the required form, where each coefficient was required to be an integer. It was
those candidates who did not use the correct process to find a midpoint, or present their
answer in the required form with all integer coefficients, that lost marks. Some just tried to
find the equation of the line AB in this part.

The majority of candidates failed to score more than 2 of the 5 marks available in part (c).
Most candidates were able to apply Pythagoras’ Theorem to obtain the length of AB and this
was then used correctly in the formula for the area of triangle to obtain MC. Successful
candidates had often produced a sketch of the information presented, whereas a lack of a
diagram with the question, was a stumbling block for weaker candidates. A significant
number of candidates gave up after finding MC or attempted to set up a pair of simultaneous
equations but did not proceed to an equation in one variable. There were various attempts at
different methods to find the possible points, with the majority using the equation of a circle
centered at the midpoint of AB with radius 5 and their l. The majority of these are to be
congratulated on demonstrating accurate algebraic skills. Other candidates who did not score
full marks, this was usually because the candidates assumed that AB was 12, they applied the
Pythagorean triple 3,4,5 from the origin, rather than from the midpoint of AB or they applied
the Pythagorean strategy, but reversing the +3 and +4

Question 7

This question seemed to result in many scoring well in the later parts, but struggling with part
(a).

In part (a), many candidates did not appreciate the graph was of the reciprocal type and
consider points of intersection, or alternatively recognise the given curve as a horizontal
translation of the negative reciprocal shape. Candidates could have tried to find where the
graph had intercepts with the coordinate axes which would have helped them to sketch the
reciprocal graph in the correct quadrants, had they appreciated that x = 2 and y = 0 were the
two equations of the asymptotes. A lot of positive reciprocal, cubic and quadratic curves and
even straight lines were seen. Trying to plot several points was also common. Some found
the correct y intercept, but because they did not have a sketch they were unable to score. Very
few candidates labelled both asymptotes and y = 0 was often omitted.

Part (b) was answered well by candidates. Candidates were usually able to set the line =
curve, multiply by (2 − x) and collect all terms on one side of the equation. A good
proportion of attempts gained at least the first three marks. The last mark was usually lost for
absence of brackets and/or slips. Most quoted b 2 − 4ac > 0 before using it and > was usually
used before the final line.

Part (c) was generally answered well and for some it was the only part of this question that
they attempted. Some candidates demonstrated the outside region on a diagram or a number
line correctly but failed to write the correct inequalities. A few used ’and’ instead of ‘or’ and x
instead of k losing the final mark.
Question 8

Most candidates found parts (a) and (b) of this question very accessible but many did not
make any meaningful attempt in part (c).

In part (a), most candidates were able to expand the brackets and differentiate the resulting
expression correctly. There were a few sign slips, but the majority of candidates who lost
dy
marks on this proof question did so because of poor notation, missing= = ... or
y ...,
dx
brackets. A few candidates used the product rule to differentiate y, usually correctly.

Part (b) was mostly well-attempted and answers gaining full marks were common. However,
dy
some candidates showed a lack of understanding that needed to be used for the gradient,
dx
with some finding the second derivative. Others used a changed gradient, often attempting
the perpendicular.

dy
In part (c), = 0 was occasionally seen, but those candidates who equated the gradient to 20
dx
generally gained full marks, even if they did not discount their other solution of a = 6 .

Question 9

This was a straightforward question on integration involving fractional indices, however, the
vast majority of candidates lost at least 2 of the 6 marks available. Almost all candidates were
able to demonstrate their understanding by integrating the 27x 2 term correctly, although a
good number of candidates failed to include the constant of integration or left it as “+c” .For
those candidates who did not score full marks, it was usually down to them not being able to
correctly simplify the fraction into separate terms using the correct laws of indices.

The most common error seemed to be the incorrect sign for the third term, which was due to
the subtracting the fraction. Many candidates struggled to simplify the coefficients of the
terms with fractional indices, some stopped since they had forgotten the constant of
integration, whilst others did not realise they had sufficient information to proceed to find the
value of the constant. A small number even differentiated the expression instead.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom