| Component | Max | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 100 | 30 | 43 | 58 | 71 |
| Internal assessment | 20 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 18 |
| Paper 1 | 80 | 21 | 31 | 42 | 52 |
| Paper 2 | 80 | 23 | 34 | 46 | 57 |
SL Paper 1
Routine skills were secure, but questions needing interpretation in context, unfamiliar set-ups or multi-step reasoning were poorly handled.
Found difficult
- spearman's rank correlation
- interpreting correlation coefficients
- angles of elevation and depression
- financial applications on the gdc
- t-test
- direct variation
- domain and range
- optimisation
- adapting a model to a new scenario
- logarithms
- percentage error
- upper and lower bounds
- bearings
- communicating reasoning
- unfamiliar contexts
- multi-step problems
Well prepared
- angle properties
- right-angled trigonometry
- sine and cosine rules
- accuracy instructions
- perpendicular lines
- equation of a line
- equation of a normal line
- logarithms
- standard form
- trapezium rule
- definite integrals
- normal distribution
- substitution into formulae
- gdc use
| Q | Topic | How it went | Where marks were lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ranking tied data and Spearman's coefficient | Mixed | could not rank tied values; used raw data instead of ranks; did not interpret the strength in contextTip: Give tied values the average of the ranks they would occupy, then compute the coefficient from ranks. |
| 2 | sine rule and angle of depression | Mixed | paired the wrong angle and side in the sine rule; calculator in radian mode; picked an angle that is not the angle of depressionTip: Match each side with its opposite angle and check your calculator is in degrees. |
| 3 | loan repayments with the finance app | Mixed | wrong signs for PV, PMT and FV; used compound interest formula with regular payments; dropped the sign of a negative NTip: Use the TVM solver whenever regular payments occur, with money in and out given opposite signs. |
| 4 | two-sample t-test | Mixed | imprecise hypotheses in words; used the unpooled setting; reported p greater than 1; generic conclusion with no contextTip: Write hypotheses in symbols, use the pooled option, and state the conclusion in the context of the question. |
| 5 | perpendicular gradient and normal line | Answered well | wrote the gradient as 2x instead of 2; incomplete argument that a line is not the normalTip: A gradient is a number; finish any argument with an explicit comparison and conclusion. |
| 6 | direct variation for stopping distance | Most struggled | did not include a constant of proportionality; forgot to square the speed; swapped d and v when substitutingTip: Write d = kv^2, find k from given data, and check the answer is a realistic speed. |
| 7 | maximising volume of a box | Most struggled | could not find the upper domain limit in context; found a zero instead of the maximum; gave maximum volume instead of x; did not rebuild the function for the new scenarioTip: Check whether the question asks for the x-value or the maximum value, and rederive the function if the set-up changes. |
| 8 | logarithmic model of password entropy | Mixed | wrote p in terms of G instead of G in terms of p; divided both sides by log; could not switch from log to exponential form; swapped the coordinates of the interceptTip: Remember log base 10 of x = y means x = 10^y; practise rearranging both ways. |
| 9 | trapezium rule, exact integral and percentage error | Mixed | substituted x-values instead of y-values; ignored the specified rounding; put the approximate value in the denominatorTip: In percentage error, divide by the exact value; in the trapezium rule, use function values. |
| 10 | linear and quadratic models of a baseball | Mixed | did not link a to the gradient of the line; rounded intermediate values on a longer routeTip: Look for a direct link between parameters before choosing a long calculation route. |
| 11 | upper and lower bounds in trigonometry | Most struggled | used plus or minus 0.1 for bounds; upper bound 14.64 instead of 14.65; used the rounded value instead of the bounds; used the wrong triangleTip: Bounds of a value rounded to 1 d.p. are half a unit of 0.1 either side. |
| 12 | normal distribution with an unknown bound | Mixed | took k with P(X < k) = 0.82 instead of the correct regionTip: Sketch and shade the region described before choosing the inverse normal input. |
| 13 | bearings and triangle trigonometry | Most struggled | could not draw a correct diagram from the bearingsTip: Draw a north line at every point and measure bearings clockwise from north. |
What to practise
- Attempt every part and show working in the answer box.
- Record unrounded answers before rounding to three significant figures.
- Check that answers are realistic in context.
- Use symbols for hypotheses and always use the pooled t-test option.
- Practise unscaffolded problems in unfamiliar contexts and interpret results.
SL Paper 2
Many students seemed underprepared and left parts blank. Regression and tree diagrams went well, but sinusoidal parameters, binomial recognition and calculus optimisation were weak.
Found difficult
- validity of regression predictions
- tangents and normals
- asymptotes
- communicating reasoning
- sinusoidal models
- binomial distribution
- optimisation
Well prepared
- gradient of a line
- linear regression
- extrapolation
- gdc use
- tree diagrams
- expected value
- differentiation of polynomials
| Q | Topic | How it went | Where marks were lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | linear model, regression and prediction | Answered well | left a fraction with non-integer numerator; no units for the gradient; used a y on x line to predict xTip: A y on x regression line should only predict y; for x from y it is not valid. |
| 2 | function graph, tangent, asymptote and intersections | Mixed | rounded the minimum to 2 s.f.; thought the tangent was perpendicular to the curve; could not write the horizontal asymptote equation; weak justificationTip: A tangent has the same gradient as the curve at that point; asymptotes are written as y = c. |
| 3 | sinusoidal tide model | Most struggled | flawed methods for amplitude and principal axis; estimated period from the graph instead of the given times; could not find b; read answers off the diagram instead of solvingTip: Use given times of high and low tide to get the period exactly, then solve the model on the GDC. |
| 4 | tree diagram, expected value and binomial | Mixed | added probabilities that should be multiplied; gave answers to too few figures; did not recognise binomial situations; confused greater and less than boundsTip: Repeated independent trials with a fixed probability are binomial; check the inequality before using cdf. |
| 5 | cylinder surface area and cost minimisation | Most struggled | worked backwards from a show that result; missed some surface areas; did not use the derivative to minimise costTip: To minimise, set the derivative to zero and solve, then substitute back for the cost. |
What to practise
- Round only the final answer to three significant figures.
- Mix topics within long practice questions.
- Learn how each parameter of a trigonometric model is found.
- Model what a justified answer looks like and practise writing reasons.
- Use a GDC that supports the full course and sketch graphs used to find solutions.
Internal assessment
What moderators raised about the exploration this session, criterion by criterion.
- A. aim different from the title and processes included that do not serve the aim
- A. many graphs stacked before any discussion, and headings without linking explanations
- B. irrelevant charts, formulae shown for GDC results and wrong format for hypothesis tests
- B. unlabelled axes, inconsistent function notation and calculator screenshots
- C. stated interest or effort without engagement in the mathematics, often in template-like work
- D. reflection limited to a closing summary or personal opinion rather than throughout
- E. statistical tests applied without checking assumptions and correlation confused with causation
- E. model parameters from arbitrary points and model choice justified only by R squared
About this summary
After every session the IB sends schools a subject report: how candidates did on each paper and question, and what teachers should work on. This page is my reading of the Maths AI SL report for May 2023 TZ1, in my own words. No text from the report or from the exam questions is reproduced, and it is not endorsed by the International Baccalaureate.
Session codes: TZ is the time zone variant of the papers. Other variants of the same session:
Frequently asked questions
Which questions were hardest in Maths AI SL May 2023 TZ1?
+
The questions most candidates struggled with were on direct variation for stopping distance, maximising volume of a box, upper and lower bounds in trigonometry and bearings and triangle trigonometry. The tables above list every question discussed in the report, paper by paper.
What did candidates find difficult in May 2023 TZ1?
+
Across the papers the examiners listed spearman's rank correlation, interpreting correlation coefficients, angles of elevation and depression, financial applications on the gdc, t-test, direct variation, domain and range and optimisation, among others.
What were the grade boundaries for Maths AI SL May 2023 TZ1?
+
Maths AI SL: a 7 from 71 out of 100 overall in May 2023 TZ1. The component boundaries are in the table on this page.
Is this the official IB subject report?
+
No. It is my summary of the report the IB issues to schools after each session, rewritten in my own words with a teacher's reading of it. No text from the report or from exam questions is reproduced. Your school's IB coordinator can access the original.