Year: 2016
Paper: 1
Question Number: 1
Course: LFM Stats And Pure
Section: Polynomials
This year, more than 2000 candidates signed up to sit this paper, though just under 2000 actually sat it. This figure is about the same as the entry figure for 2015, though the number of candidates opting to sit STEP I has risen significantly over recent years; for instance, it was around 1500 in 2013. There is no doubt that the purpose of the STEPs is to learn which students can genuinely use their mathematical knowledge, skills and techniques in an arena that demands of them a level of performance that exceeds anything they will have encountered within the standard A-level (or equivalent) assessments. The ability to work at an extended piece of mathematical work, often with the minimum of specific guidance, allied to the need for both determination and the ability to "make connections" at speed and under considerable time pressure, are characteristics that only follow from careful preparation, and there is a great benefit to be had from an early encounter with, and subsequent prolonged exposure to, these kinds of questions. It is not always easy to say what level of preparation has been undertaken by candidates, but the minimum expected requirement is the ability to undertake routine A-level-standard tasks and procedures with speed and accuracy. At the top end of the scale, almost 100 candidates produced a three-figure score to the paper, which is a phenomenal achievement; and around 250 others scored a mark of 70+, which is also exceptionally impressive. At the other end of the scale, over 400 candidates failed to reach a total of 40 marks out of the 120 available. For STEP I, the most approachable questions are always set as Qs.1 & 2 on the paper, with Q1 in particular intended to afford every candidate the opportunity to get something done successfully. So it is perfectly reasonable for a candidate, upon opening the paper, to make an immediate start at the first and/or second question(s) before looking around to decide which of the remaining 10 or 11 questions they feel they can tackle. It is very important that candidates spend a few minutes – possibly at the beginning – reading through the questions to decide which six they intend to work, since they will ultimately only be credited with their best six question marks. Many students spend time attempting seven, eight, or more questions and find themselves giving up too easily on a question the moment the going gets tough, and this is a great pity, since they are not allowing themselves thinking time, either on the paper as a whole or on individual questions. The other side to the notion of strategy is that most candidates clearly believe that they need to attempt (at least) six questions when, in fact, four questions (almost) completely done would guarantee a Grade 1 (Distinction), especially if their score on these first four questions were then to be supplemented by a couple of early attempts at the starting parts of a couple more questions (for the first five or six marks); attempts which need not take longer than, say, ten minutes of their time. It is thus perfectly reasonable to suggest to candidates, in their preparations, that they can spend more than 30 minutes on a question, but only IF they think they are going to finish it off satisfactorily, although it might be best if they were advised to spend absolutely no more than 40-45 minutes on any single question; if they haven't finished by then, it really is time to move on. Curve-sketching skills are usually a common weakness, but were only tested on this paper in Q3. The other common area of weakness – algebra – was tested relatively frequently, and proved to be as testing as usual. Calculus skills were generally "okay" although the integration of first-order differential equations by the separation of variables, as appearing repeatedly in Q4, was found challenging by many of the candidates who attempted this question. The most noticeable deficiency, however, was in the widespread inability to construct an argument, particularly in Qs. 5, 7 & 8. Vectors are often poorly handled, and this year proved no exception.
Difficulty Rating: 1500.0
Difficulty Comparisons: 0
Banger Rating: 1516.0
Banger Comparisons: 1
\begin{questionparts}
\item
For $n=1$, $2$, $3$ and $4$, the functions $\p_n$ and $\q_n$ are defined by
\[
\p_n(x) = (x+1)^{2n} - (2n+1)x (x^2+x+1)^{n-1}
\]
and
\[
\q_n(x) = \frac{x^{2n+1}+1}{x+1}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (x\ne -1)
\,. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\]
Show that $\p_n(x)\equiv \q_n(x)$ (for $x\ne-1$) in the cases $n=1$, $n=2$ and $n=3$.
Show also that this does not hold in the case $n=4$.
\item Using results from part (i):
\begin{itemize}
\item[\bf (a)]
express
$ \ \dfrac {300^3 +1}{301}\,$
as the product of two factors (neither of which is 1);
\item[\bf (b)]
express
$ \ \dfrac {7^{49}+1}{7^7+1}\,$ as the product of two factors (neither of
which is 1), each
written in terms of
various powers of 7 which you should not attempt
to calculate explicitly.
\end{itemize}
\end{questionparts}\begin{questionparts}
\item $n=1$:
\begin{align*}
&& p_1(x) &= (x+1)^2 - 3x(x^2+x+1)^0 \\
&&&= x^2+2x+1-3x \\
&&&= x^2-x+1\\
&& q_1(x) &= \frac{x^3+1}{x+1} \\
&&&= x^2-x+1 = p_1(x) \\
\\
&& p_2(x) &= (x+1)^4-5x(x^2+x+1)^1 \\
&&&= x^4+4x^3+6x^2+4x+1 - 5x^3-5x^2-5x \\
&&&= x^4-x^3+x^2-x+1 \\
&&q_2(x) &= \frac{x^5+1}{x+1} \\
&&&= x^4-x^3+x^2-x+1 = p_2(x) \\
\\
&& p_3(x) &= (x+1)^6-7x(x^2+x+1)^2 \\
&&&= x^6+6x^5+15x^4+20x^3+15x^2+6x+1 - 7x(x^4+2x^3+3x^2+2x+1) \\
&&&= x^6-x^5+x^4-x^3+x^2-x+1 \\
&& q_3(x) &= \frac{x^7+1}{x+1} \\
&&&= x^6-x^5+x^4-x^3+x^2-x+1 = p_3(x) \\
\\
&& p_4(1) &= 2^8 - 9 \cdot 1 \cdot 3^3 \\
&&&= 256 - 243 = 13 \\
&& q_4(1) &= \frac{2}{2} = 1 \neq 13
\end{align*}
\item \begin{itemize}
\item[\bf (a)] $\,$
\begin{align*}
&& \frac{300^3+1}{300+1} &= (300+1)^2 - 3 \cdot 300 \\
&&&= 301^2 - 30^2 \\
&&&= 271 \cdot 331
\end{align*}
\item[\bf (b)] $\,$
\begin{align*}
&& \dfrac {7^{49}+1}{7^7+1} &= (7^7+1)^6 - 7 \cdot 7^7 \cdot (7^2+7+1)^2 \\
&&&= (7^7+1)^6 - 7^8 \cdot (7^2+7+1)^2 \\
&&&= ((7^7+1)^3 - 7^4(7^2+7+1)) \cdot ((7^7+1)^3 + 7^4(7^2+7+1))
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{questionparts}
Marginally the most popular question on the paper, and the highest-scoring, this was a relatively carefully signposted question; thus, even though the demands were entirely algebraic, it was a good starter question and gave all candidates something to get their teeth into. It was still often the case that candidates spent a lot more time doing fairly simple things than they should have; for instance, an awful lot of attempts produced over and over again (effectively) the same work to show that x^(2n+1) - 1 / (x-1) = x^(2n) + x^(2n-1) + ... + x^2 + x + 1 in each of the four given cases. And a similar amount of unnecessary effort was expended on what should have been some fairly simple binomial expansions. Nevertheless, most candidates made good progress for the n=1,2,3 cases. To show that p4 and q4 are not identical, it suffices to choose any one value of x for which they yield different outputs, but most approaches preferred to deal with the full polynomial expansions, which is fine but (again) not an optimal approach. In part (ii), most candidates realised that they were to use the results of part (i), and they were generally able to do so for at least (a). Relatively few realised that the same idea (the use of the difference of two squares factorisation) was to be deployed in (b), presumably put off by the large numbers involved and the notion that the answer could be left in terms of powers of 7.