Hello,

May someone explain to me how detailed answers are expected to be ?

Hi,

There is something which disturbs me in the STEP II curve sketching module "About this assignment" part. It states that STEP papers may not ask us to draw a graph, yet I have seen past papers up to 2014 asking to sketch a graph, and curve sketching is still an expected skill in the syllabus. Is it a typo or have I misunderstood the statement ?

Thank you !

Hi all,

If you have an offer for Cambridge which includes STEP II and STEP III, and you are UK domiciled and attend a UK state school then you should have received an email inviting you to a STEP preparation day in March.

If you have any questions about these days then please ask! Also, if you meet the above criteria but have not received an email please contact us and let us know https://maths.org/contact.

In Q4(ii)(b) the answer subtracts 1 from 3^n for the scenario where there are no weights on either scale. However the Q states the inclusion of weighing 0 pounds. Is there a mistake in the answer or am I missing something?

I think Question 2(iii) should read "Sketch $y=mx+1$ ..."

Thank you very much for these; invaluable for our STEP candidates and their teachers!

I would like to leave some years as past papers in May, so I wanted to check: are there years you have left out of the modules?

How do you know that the curve has rotational symmetry of 2 around the inflection point, apart from it being implied for the last result to be correct? Would you have to show that it does in the exam, or could you just state it?

Happy New Year STEPpers !

Looking at the aforementioned bit of the STEP question in this assignment, I notice that candidates are invited to show that f(N) is an integer 'for all N' , where f(N) has only been defined for N in Z-plus.

This surely leads to an 'embarrassing bit' at the end, where all one can do is say that until a form of f(N) , true for all N, is presented (or found, presumably by us), it is not possible to extend a result for f(N) : N in Z-plus to a result for all N.

I have two questions about the first part of the question ( and the solution given on the 'Vectors' S2 module):

1. When expressing $m_{3/4}$ as a general 3D vector, why can we just assume that the direction is the same for both vectors wouldn't we need $a\vec{i}+b\vec{j}+c\vec{k}$ for $m_3$ say and then $k\vec{i}+m\vec{j}+n\vec{k}$ for $m_4$? This is why I got stuck initially.