Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

January 2020

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE

In Mathematics B (4MB1) Paper 2R
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

January 2020
Publication Code 4MB1_02R_2001_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
Examiners’ Report/ Principal Examiner Feedback

January 2020

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE Mathematics B (4MB1)

Paper 02R

Introduction to Paper 02R

While examiners did report many excellent responses to questions, some candidates did seem
under-prepared for this paper with examiners reporting many blank responses to the later
questions on the paper.
To enhance performance in future series, centres should focus their candidates’ attention on the
following topics:
 Enlargements with negative scale factors
 Questions that involve the demand to show all working (most notably questions 5) or working
from a previous part (most notably question 3 part (b))
 Giving answers to the required degree of accuracy
 Application of bounds
 Vectors
In general, candidates should be encouraged to identify the number of marks available for each
part of a question and allocate a proportionate amount of time to each part of the question. In
addition, candidates should also be advised to read the demands of the question very carefully
before attempting to answer. It should be pointed out that the methods identified within this
report and on the mark scheme may not be the only legitimate methods for correctly solving the
questions. Alternative methods, whilst not explicitly identified, earn the equivalent marks. Some
candidates use methods which are beyond the scope of the syllabus and, where used correctly,
the corresponding marks are given.

Report on Individual Questions

Question 1

A significant proportion of candidates encountered difficulties in part (a) with reverse

percentages and many incorrectly increased 20340 by 10% and then increased their result by
20%. It was interesting to note that many candidates seemed to favour a fraction approach rather
than an arguably more direct decimal approach. Often the notation used by candidates did not
allow the release of the corresponding method mark – for example, it was common to see: (1 –
10%) x = 20340. However, in most cases, candidates were able to obtain full marks by
recovering to obtain the correct answer. It would be beneficial to remind candidates to write
equations using decimals or fractions rather than percentage signs.
Part (b) was usually more successfully attempted. Most candidates seemed to be well-prepared
for finding a percentage change. There was roughly an equal split between those who used the
formula: ‘(difference/original amount)  100’ and those who, equivalently, divided 19323 by
20340 and then deduced that there was a 5% reduction. A common error that arose occurred
when candidates misread the question and instead of finding the percentage change from March
2018 to March 2019, found the percentage change from March 2016 to March 2019. It was also
reasonably common to see the value of -5%.
Question 2

This question highlighted misconceptions with ratio and therefore provided a good spread of
marks. The less able candidates set the sum of the ratios: 1 + (2x + y) + (x + 2y) equal to the
sum of the weights 105 + 252 + 273 and were unable to make further progress. The more able
candidates were able to link the ratio and the weight and set up two simultaneous equations such
as 2x + y = 252 and x + 2y = 273 giving rise to the common, but incorrect answers of x = 77
and y = 98. These candidates had failed to take account of the proportion aspect and, as a result,
lost at least two marks overall. The most successful candidates were able to formulate equations
which represented the proportions correctly. The most common of these involved comparing
cement to sand and then cement to gravel and, indeed, this approach led to the simplest
equations. Other more complicated equations were formed involving the total mass of the
materials. Most candidates were able to earn the method marks for solving their simultaneous
equations and the majority who obtained the correct solution, gave it as a simplified fraction as
had been requested. Unfortunately, in some cases candidates wrote down very little working in
this part and as result, were unable to earn marks for method when accuracy was lost.
Candidates should be advised to demonstrate their method to avoid loss of marks in these cases.

Question 3

Most candidates were able to find the inverse of the given 2 by 2 matrix in part (a). Examiners
commented that they saw very few errors in this first part. Where they did occur, errors included
obtaining a determinant of +2 rather than -2 or failing to adjust the matrix entries correctly.
In part (b), candidates had been asked to use their answer to part (a) to find the solution of the
simultaneous equations in matrix form. It was overwhelmingly the case that either candidates
did not read the question carefully or that they chose to answer using an alternative method via
multiplying out the matrix and obtaining two simultaneous equations in x2 and y which could
then be solved. This approach incurred a penalty of one mark. In some cases, candidates had
been unable to answer part (a) but were able to attempt (b) via this alternative method.
Unfortunately, this approach was sometimes unsuccessful where candidates were unable to
multiply the 2 by 2 matrix by the column matrix correctly and in some cases did not manage to
obtain two equations in x2 and y. Candidates using part (a) and the inverse of the matrix were
usually successful however in some cases, candidates incorrectly attempted to post-multiply the
column matrix by the inverse rather than pre-multiply. This led to some creative matrix
multiplication and did not earn any marks. Most candidates who obtained two correct equations
either using part (a) or otherwise, managed to solve the equations correctly, although it was
common for y  4 to be omitted.

Question 4

This question highlighted many misconceptions with bounds. It proved to be a very tricky
question for most candidates with most obtaining very few marks. Even part (a)(i) which should
have been quite accessible was found to be difficult for many. Candidates struggled to cope
with different levels of accuracy for each weight and furthermore, a surprising number of
candidates incorrectly deduced ranges of weights interpreting ‘7.5kg to the nearest 100g’ to be a
weight within [7.4, 7.6) rather than [7.45, 7.55) for example.
Parts (a)(ii) and (iii) were more challenging and it was very common to see candidates using
upper bounds for both weights in (ii) and then both lower bounds in (iii). Some candidates also
missed that in part (iii) they had been asked for the lower bound to the nearest 50g although,
given that it was generally the more able candidates that got to this point it was relatively few
who gave too accurate an answer here. Weaker candidates were seen to calculate the difference
between the two stated weights followed by an attempt to add or subtract amounts to
erroneously determine the upper or lower bound.
Part (b) was more challenging and only a minority of candidates earned marks here. The less
able candidates ignored the bounds altogether and simply calculated 45 times 220 and deducing
that Bertie did not have enough sweets. Alternative responses included a partial attempt to
consider bounds with an incorrect statement that the lower bound of the jar of sweets was 9.8
(rather than the correct 9.9); concluding therefore that Bertie did have enough sweets. It was
clear that candidates were not confident in transforming a stated degree of accuracy into a range
of possible values. Furthermore they did not realise that they needed to work out the lower
bound of the weight of sweets in 45 bags and compare this to the lower bound for the weight of
sweets in a full jar or, alternatively, calculate the largest number of bags required by using the
upper bound for the weight in the jar and the minimum weight of sweets in a bag. Some
candidates were unable to gain the final mark here because their conclusion was not explicit
enough or because they referred to an upper bound of 46 bags.

Question 5

This question split candidates into two main groups. Those who were clearly well prepared for
this style of question and who immediately wrote 45 as 32 5 (or, more rarely, 45 95 and
34x as 92x) and those who incorrectly attempted to combine terms with different bases to obtain,
for example, 6754 x3x112 x on the left hand side. Usually, candidates who replaced 45 with
32 5 were able to make good progress and either combined the powers of three so that they
were reduced to 30 or, immediately wrote down an equation for the powers of five only to
compare with the power of 4 on the right hand side. However, some candidates were less
successful and were unsure how to proceed with an equation that included terms of different
bases. Others tried to combine terms with base 5 and those with base 3 at this stage ultimately
obtaining incorrect equations involving terms of base 15 or simply ignored the bases altogether
and wrote down an equation with all the power terms. This method led to the correct answer of
x = 2 due to the cancelling of the powers of 3 but since the method was incorrect, could not
earn the corresponding accuracy marks. A small number of candidates managed to get the
answer of x = 2 with very little working and then confirmed it via substitution. Given that the
question had asked for clear algebraic working, such an approach was unable to earn full marks.

Question 6

Part (a) proved to be accessible to most candidates. In part (ii), most candidates worked out
h   14  to get 24 and then calculated f ( 24) rather than finding the composite function
fh  x  first.
Part (b) was found to be quite accessible for most candidates and many were able to gain some
marks here. Marks were sometimes lost when  hf  was given in terms of y rather than x or
1

when the value of x to be excluded from the domain was given as x  3 or sometimes x = 2
(which would give zero numerator rather than zero denominator). Weaker candidates sometimes
x3
thought that  hf  meant the reciprocal of hf  x  so wrote down
1
. Others made
6
6
mistakes multiplying both sides of the equation y  by  x  3 obtaining for example,
x3
yx  3  6.
Part (c) was well done by many candidates. The majority understood how to combine functions
h, g and f correctly with only a minority of candidates finding fgh( x ) rather than hgf  x  .
Some candidates lost marks when they made errors expanding the quadratic (x + 3)2 to obtain x2
+ 9 and others made arithmetical errors when rearranging hgf  x   2. When errors occurred, it
was sometimes not possible to award method marks as insufficient steps were shown in
working.

Question 7

Part (a) was answered correctly by almost all candidates.

Part (b) was usually correct. Where errors occurred, it appeared to be due to miscounting the
number of relevant multiples. Probabilities were almost always given in fraction form:
sometimes simplified but often not simplified. Either form was acceptable.
Part (c) was very challenging for many candidates and it was very common to see incorrect
answers such as P(Ahmed wins) = 204  203 or P(Ahmed wins) = 204  203 etc. It was clear that
many candidates were confused by the multiple branches and did not know how to tackle a
complex probability tree diagram nor how to find the probability of several successive events
taking place. Most candidates did not realise that the game could comprise between 1 and 4
rounds and that Ahmed could only win in 1 or 3 rounds and Hani only in 2 or 4 rounds. Almost
all candidates who managed to obtain the correct probabilities gave conclusions which were
enough for full marks.

Question 8

This question was successfully attempted by many candidates and was a good source of marks.
Candidates had been asked to give answers to 3 significant figures and are therefore reminded
that they should give answers to the degree specified in the question.
All parts were well attempted. Errors usually arose due to mixing up sine and cosine in the
respective formulae in parts (a) and (b) or missing a factor of ½ in the calculation of the area of
triangle DCM in part (d). Some candidates incorrectly treated the triangles as right angled
triangles in one or more than one part of the question. In part (d), some candidates took a longer
route to a solution and found the area of triangle ABC and then determined the proportion of
ABC required for triangle DCM. Examiners noted that they saw several responses where
candidates misinterpreted the ratio AD : DC = 1 : 2 as AD = ½ AC.

Question 9

This question proved to be a good differentiator. Almost all candidates were able to correctly
draw triangle A in part (a) and many were able to pick up at least one mark in part (d) often for
‘enlargement’ or ‘scale factor 2’ and less commonly ‘centre  9, 8  ’. Examiners saw several
responses where candidates had stated more than one transformation and so were unable to
obtain marks in part (d) as the question had clearly specified that a single transformation be
given.
Success in parts (b) and (c) was more varied. Some candidates attempted to write down matrices
to assist in determining the new vertices of the triangles, but this did not take account of the
centre not being at the origin. It was surprising to see that weaker candidates had not realised
that the side lengths of triangle B should be half that of A nor that triangle C should have the
same side lengths as B. It was quite common to see no construction lines used especially for part
(d). Sometimes when they were present, construction lines did not go through the relevant
centre of the transformation.
Question 10

This question also proved to be a good differentiator. It was clear that some candidates were
very well prepared for a question on vectors whereas others seemed to have much more
difficulty working with vectors effectively. A reasonable number of candidates fared well with
part (a) but for others, errors cropped up repeatedly resulting sometimes in very few marks here.
There were several opportunities for candidates to pick up method marks even if earlier work
had been incorrect but often errors of the same manner occurred from one part of the question to
the next which meant that an incorrect method had repeatedly been used. It seemed that, for

some reason, many candidates were confused about the vector OA = a being from left to right
 
on the page and many used AO or OD  a rather than a. Other issues arose when
  
candidates made mistakes with vector addition, believing that, for example, AC  BA  CB or
similar.

In part (b), candidates were asked to express ON in terms of a, b and  and so it was

surprising that some chose to write simply ON   b which had been given in the question. Of

those that did write down an expression for ON in terms of a and b, different routes were used:
  
for example, the direct route of ON  OA  AN or the less direct route of
     
ON  OD  DC  CB  BA  AN . Some candidates did not simplify their expression by
collecting terms in a but this was condoned provided there were two terms in a and one in b.

Once an expression for ON had been found, some candidates did not manage to equate their

expression to  b. Of those that did equate the two expressions for ON , a significant number of
candidates were unsure how to proceed to solve an equation in terms of two non-parallel vectors
a and b. However, some candidates who did not make progress in part (b)(i) managed to access
   
(ii) by expressing AN  AO  ON and then by equating this to  AM and comparing
1
coefficients of a and of b. It seemed that the relationship    was more easily identified
2
than the result from the coefficients of a.
For those candidates who managed to progress to the end of part (c), part (d) was often
completed successfully.

Question 11

Most candidates were able to correctly calculate the missing values of y although some lost a
mark for rounding incorrectly (either to one decimal place or to more than two decimal places).
Plotting the curve was sometimes more problematic. Some candidates failed to plot the point at
x = 0. Others did not realise that curve should dip between x = 0.5 and x = 1 and so drew a
straight line between these two points. For other candidates, errors arose with either plotting
points inaccurately (the point (4, 2.53) sometimes caused issues) or struggling to draw a smooth
curve passing through all the relevant points. Overall though, curves were well drawn.
Part (c) was a differentiator and several candidates did not make much progress here. Some
1 3 6 2 3
candidates rearranged the equation to  x  x  x  x 2  5 x  3 but then were
6 5 2
surprisingly unable to write down the intersection points correctly. Sometimes giving no
solution and sometimes giving intersection points with the axis rather than intersection points
between the two curves. Some candidates wrote no working out, perhaps making use of a
calculator to find solutions which were then checked on the graph (usually evidenced by
x  4.4 being considered). Sometimes candidates lost a mark here for failing to give values to
2 decimal places – usually 4.8 instead of 4.80.
The x coordinates for P and Q often appeared in part (d) even if they were absent in (c) and this
part of the question was often more successful. However, there were several sources of error.
For example, examiners saw calculations for the gradient that included: ‘change in x / change in
y’ or (y2 – x2)/(y1 – x1) or even ‘(y2 + y1)/(x2 – x1) where candidates had perhaps become
confused by the minus sign for the x-coordinate at P. Other incorrect responses included those
that differentiated the cubic and then either tried to find stationary points on the curve or tried to
find the gradient at P and/or Q.
Part (e) was accessible to candidates in a variety of ways. Some simply read off the intercept of
their line between P and Q. Others used the coordinates for P and Q to set up a pair of
simultaneous equations independent of part (d) and others used the gradient from (d) and the
coordinates of either P or Q or some other point on the line PQ to find b. Earlier inaccuracies
often meant that only one mark was available here even if the method was sound.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom