Physics Predictions/Thoughts (3 Viewers)

[coolcat6778]

What’s maximum possible marks for purely qualitative answer for last question? No calculations but including formulas and the conservation of momentum?

the least quantitative u can go for full marks is using the conservation of momentum formula i guess

i doubt you needed to find the velocity as it impacted the earth tho

 

[coolcat6778]

this question is so unstructured its actually garbage. You're expected to pull out the most random garbage out of your ass (and you don't know how much you have to actually explain or calculate, it's so vague)

like atleast give us scaffolding that says "(i) calculate this (ii) calculate the speed mb the moment it impacts the earth"

 

[coolcat6778]

they scaffolded this trivial projectile motion question, yet didn't scaffold a clearly more complex problem

 

[Arnav_2007]

I

this question is so unstructured its actually garbage. You're expected to pull out the most random garbage out of your ass (and you don't know how much you have to actually explain or calculate)

like atleast give us scaffolding that says "(i) calculate this" "(ii) calculate the speed mb the moment it impacts the earth"

Ik at least tell us to use calculations, “formulae and relevant conservation law” is so bs if they wanted calcs.

fk hsc has become a guessing game due to this garbage question making.

 

[lucas10champ]

What’s maximum possible marks for purely qualitative answer for last question? No calculations but including formulas and the conservation of momentum?

maybe 4 but not too sure

 

[Arnav_2007]

maybe 4 but not too sure

But the question didn’t state to use calculations. Can’t they still reward a qualitative answer?

 

[C2H6O]

Yo are there solutions?

 

[coolcat6778]

and https://www.cognitotuition.com/blog/2025-hsc-physics-exam-paper-exemplar-answers-solutions

 

[lucas10champ]

But the question didn’t state to use calculations. Can’t they still reward a qualitative answer?

didnt it say conservation laws and calcs?

 

[coolcat6778]

didnt it say conservation laws and calcs?

only to refer to them (which you don't have to do a quantitative analysis)

2024 had many similar questions which ask you to refer to physics formulas and laws (which didn't require quantitative analysis)

 

[Jonathan Wayne]

I ain’t the brightest student but my understanding was that it was primarily a qualitative analysis with close reference and links to conservation formulas. But my opinion really doesn’t matter I failed and max out at low band 5 or high band 4. Inshallah my math adv is a band 6 with good alignment and I won’t even care about the rest of the atar.

 

[coolcat6778]

I ain’t the brightest student but my understanding was that it was primarily a qualitative analysis with close reference and links to conservation formulas. But my opinion really doesn’t matter I failed and max out at low band 5 or high band 4. Inshallah my math adv is a band 6 with good alignment and I won’t even care about the rest of the atar.

mid band 5 in physics scaled the same as a 90 in math advanced last year

 

[Jonathan Wayne]

Drag

 

[alphxreturns]

I ain’t the brightest student but my understanding was that it was primarily a qualitative analysis with close reference and links to conservation formulas. But my opinion really doesn’t matter I failed and max out at low band 5 or high band 4. Inshallah my math adv is a band 6 with good alignment and I won’t even care about the rest of the atar.

of course ur opinion matters bro what

 

[coolcat6778]

2024 alignment wasn't good


Band 5 cutoff last year was therefore 70/100 (alignment still sucked lol).

Someone got lucky they got extra hsc marks (though they clearly deserved it as they did most of the actual questions correct, fuck history regurgitation). He unfairly lost like 6 to 7 marks on these questions (he tried appealing but NESA sent a copied and pasted generic mail saying the are perfect and can't make mistakes), so this boost doesn't make up for it. He should've scraped a high band 5. Otherwise, he only lost most of his marks in MCQ, which is why I said he deserved a high band 5 and not a band 6.

What this implies is that the alignment in the 2025 exam is gonna be so shit. I thought 2024 was op, but it was just an error.

You will need a atleast 72/100 to scrape a band 5 in this garbage 2025 exam

 

[coolcat6778]

@tywebb

this might be wrong, depending on how pedantic the marker is

 

[barnyard]

@tywebb
View attachment 50558
this might be wrong, depending on how pedantic the marker is

yo for this question i said that the data point at 0.9x10^14hz was an outlier do u think that was wrong to do

He unfairly lost like 6 to 7 marks on these questions

six seven

 

[Arnav_2007]

yo for this question i said that the data point at 0.9x10^14hz was an outlier do u think that was wrong to do



six seven

I don't think it was too far off to be an outlier.

 

[barnyard]

I don't think it was too far off to be an outlier.

yea but every single point except that one matches the trend and if u remove it then the r value is 1 lol
also every photoelectric question ive ever seen has had the data points exactly in a perfect trend

 

[Arnav_2007]

yea but every single point except that one matches the trend and if u remove it then the r value is 1 lol
also every photoelectric question ive ever seen has had the data points exactly in a perfect trend

But the question said line of best fit right? In my eyes that requires including all the data points, but I may be wrong. Try calculating the gradient of both lines including/excluding the first data-point and see which is closer to h, that'll probably give a good indication of what they're looking for.