The 2024 Mathematical Methods exams were not defined by unusually difficult mathematics. They were defined by where students failed to complete the thinking that the questions required. When read alongside the assessment guides and Examiner’s Reports, several questions stand out as clear discrimination points.
In each case, students who lost marks did so for the same reasons. They stopped too early, relied too heavily on CAS output, or failed to communicate reasoning explicitly.
A calculus question where differentiation was not the endpoint
One of the most revealing questions in the 2024 papers involved differentiation followed by an application of that result. The differentiation itself was straightforward and accessible to most students. Examiner commentary indicates that this step was generally well handled.
The loss of marks occurred in what followed.
After differentiating, students were required to use the derivative to determine a value or interpret behaviour. Many students stopped once the derivative was found, treating differentiation as the final goal rather than as a step within a larger argument.
In the marking scheme, this resulted in students receiving the method mark for differentiation but losing the subsequent application mark. The Examiner’s Report explicitly notes that a large proportion of students did not carry the derivative through to the required conclusion.
The key issue here was not calculus knowledge. It was failure to follow the instruction to its end.
A “use this result” instruction that was widely ignored
Another 2024 question explicitly instructed students to “use this result” in a subsequent part. This phrasing is deliberate. It signals that the earlier work is not self-contained and that marks are allocated for continuation.
Examiner commentary notes that many students treated each part independently. They recomputed values unnecessarily, or worse, ignored the earlier result entirely and attempted a different approach.
Students who did this often lost marks even when their mathematics was correct, because the question was assessing whether they could build logically on a given result rather than start again.
This question functioned as a test of reading accuracy and logical continuity rather than technical skill.
A graphing task where the shape was right but the mathematics was incomplete
In the 2024 exams, a graphing question appeared that most students attempted confidently. Examiner feedback shows that the general shape of the graph was often correct.
Marks were lost because required features were missing.
Specifically, students frequently omitted clear labelling of asymptotes, failed to indicate restricted domains correctly, or did not distinguish between open and closed endpoints. In the marking scheme, these features were individually assessable.
The Examiner’s Report is explicit that a graph without these elements cannot receive full marks, regardless of how accurate the curve appears.
This question demonstrates a recurring issue in Mathematical Methods. Visual correctness is not sufficient. Mathematical completeness is required.
A CAS-assisted question where judgement mattered more than calculation
In Examination 2, a question required students to use CAS to solve or evaluate an expression, then interpret or refine that output.
Examiner commentary highlights that many students copied CAS results directly into their answers without checking whether those results satisfied the conditions of the problem. This included accepting extraneous solutions or presenting decimal approximations where exact values were expected.
Students who did this often lost interpretation marks, even though their CAS usage was technically correct.
This question clearly separated students who treat CAS as an authority from those who treat it as a tool that must be interrogated.
A probability question that exposed informal reasoning
The 2024 paper included a probability question that was conceptually accessible but structurally precise. Examiner feedback indicates that many students arrived at plausible numerical answers using informal reasoning or intuition.
However, marks were awarded for defining events correctly, structuring the probability calculation appropriately, and using correct notation.
Students who skipped these steps often received partial credit only. The Examiner’s Report notes that probability reasoning must be explicit, not implied.
This question reinforces that Mathematical Methods assesses formal mathematical structure rather than everyday reasoning, even when the context feels intuitive.
What these questions have in common
Across these examples, the mathematics itself was not extreme. What differentiated students was their ability to:
- follow instructions through to their conclusion
- treat intermediate results as steps, not endpoints
- apply judgement after CAS output
- communicate reasoning clearly and completely
Students who lost marks often believed they had “basically done the question”. From a VCAA perspective, they had not.
Why these questions matter for preparation
These 2024 questions are not anomalies. They reflect how VCAA now consistently places discrimination points.
Preparation that focuses only on technique without attention to instruction, structure, and communication will continue to underperform. Students do not need harder questions. They need to practise finishing questions properly.
An ATAR STAR perspective
ATAR STAR analyses Mathematical Methods exams at this level so students can see exactly where marks are lost and why.
We train students to read questions with intent, carry results through logically, and write solutions that align with assessment guides. This supports students who are capable but inconsistent and high-performing students who want to eliminate predictable losses.
The 2024 exam did not reward brilliance. It rewarded completeness.