Date | November 2021 | Marks available | 5 | Reference code | 21N.3.AHL.TZ0.2 |
Level | Additional Higher Level | Paper | Paper 3 | Time zone | Time zone 0 |
Command term | Show that | Question number | 2 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
This question explores models for the height of water in a cylindrical container as water drains out.
The diagram shows a cylindrical water container of height metres and base radius metre. At the base of the container is a small circular valve, which enables water to drain out.
Eva closes the valve and fills the container with water.
At time , Eva opens the valve. She records the height, metres, of water remaining in the container every minutes.
Eva first tries to model the height using a linear function, , where .
Eva uses the equation of the regression line of on , to predict the time it will take for all the water to drain out of the container.
Eva thinks she can improve her model by using a quadratic function, , where .
Eva uses this equation to predict the time it will take for all the water to drain out of the container and obtains an answer of minutes.
Let be the volume, in cubic metres, of water in the container at time minutes.
Let be the radius, in metres, of the circular valve.
Eva does some research and discovers a formula for the rate of change of .
Eva measures the radius of the valve to be metres. Let be the time, in minutes, it takes for all the water to drain out of the container.
Eva wants to use the container as a timer. She adjusts the initial height of water in the container so that all the water will drain out of the container in minutes.
Eva has another water container that is identical to the first one. She places one water container above the other one, so that all the water from the highest container will drain into the lowest container. Eva completely fills the highest container, but only fills the lowest container to a height of metre, as shown in the diagram.
At time Eva opens both valves. Let be the height of water, in metres, in the lowest container at time .
Find the equation of the regression line of on .
Interpret the meaning of parameter in the context of the model.
Suggest why Eva’s use of the linear regression equation in this way could be unreliable.
Find the equation of the least squares quadratic regression curve.
Find the value of .
Hence, write down a suitable domain for Eva’s function .
Show that .
By solving the differential equation , show that the general solution is given by , where .
Use the general solution from part (d) and the initial condition to predict the value of .
Find this new height.
Show that , where .
Use Euler’s method with a step length of minutes to estimate the maximum value of .
Markscheme
A1A1
Note: Award A1 for an equation in and and A1 for the coefficient and constant .
[2 marks]
EITHER
the rate of change of height (of water in metres per minute) A1
Note: Accept “rate of decrease” or “rate of increase” in place of “rate of change”.
OR
the (average) amount that the height (of the water) decreases each minute A1
[1 mark]
EITHER
unreliable to use on equation to estimate A1
OR
unreliable to extrapolate from original data A1
OR
rate of change (of height) might not remain constant (as the water drains out) A1
[1 mark]
A1
[1 mark]
(M1)
A1
[2 marks]
EITHER
A1
OR
(due to range of original data / interpolation) A1
[1 mark]
(A1)
EITHER
M1
OR
attempt to use chain rule M1
THEN
A1
AG
[3 marks]
attempt to separate variables M1
A1
A1A1
Note: Award A1 for each correct side of the equation.
A1
Note: Award the final A1 for any correct intermediate step that clearly leads to the given equation.
AG
[5 marks]
(M1)
(A1)
substituting and their non-zero value of (M1)
(minutes) A1
[4 marks]
(A1)
(M1)
(metres) A1
[3 marks]
let be the height of water in the highest container from parts (d) and (e) we get
(M1)(A1)
so M1A1
AG
[4 marks]
evidence of using Euler’s method correctly
e.g. (A1)
maximum value of (metres) (at minutes) A2
( metres)
[3 marks]
Examiners report
All parts were answered well. In part(a)(i) a few candidates lost a mark from either not writing an equation or not using the variables and . In part (a)(ii) some candidates incorrectly stated it was the rate of change of water, instead of the rate of change of the height of the water. A few weaker candidates simply stated it is the gradient of the line. In part (a)(iii) some candidates incorrectly criticized the linear model, instead of addressing the question about why it could be unreliable to use the model to make a prediction about the future.
All parts were answered well. In part(a)(i) a few candidates lost a mark from either not writing an equation or not using the variables and . In part (a)(ii) some candidates incorrectly stated it was the rate of change of water, instead of the rate of change of the height of the water. A few weaker candidates simply stated it is the gradient of the line. In part (a)(iii) some candidates incorrectly criticized the linear model, instead of addressing the question about why it could be unreliable to use the model to make a prediction about the future.
All parts were answered well. In part(a)(i) a few candidates lost a mark from either not writing an equation or not using the variables and . In part (a)(ii) some candidates incorrectly stated it was the rate of change of water, instead of the rate of change of the height of the water. A few weaker candidates simply stated it is the gradient of the line. In part (a)(iii) some candidates incorrectly criticized the linear model, instead of addressing the question about why it could be unreliable to use the model to make a prediction about the future.
This question was answered well by many candidates. In part (b)(ii) a small number of candidates incorrectly
gave two answers for , showing a lack of understanding of the context of the model.
This question was answered well by many candidates. In part (b)(ii) a small number of candidates incorrectly
gave two answers for , showing a lack of understanding of the context of the model.
This question was answered well by many candidates. In part (b)(ii) a small number of candidates incorrectly
gave two answers for , showing a lack of understanding of the context of the model.
Many candidates recognized the need to use related rates of change, but could not present coherent working to reach the given answer. Often candidates either did not appreciate the need to use the equation for the volume of a cylinder or did not simplify their equation using . Many candidates wrote nonsense arguments trying to cancel the factor of . In these long paper 3 questions, the purpose of “show that” parts is often to enable candidates to re-enter a question if they are unable to do a previous part.
Many candidates were able to correctly separate the variables, but many found the integral of to be too difficult. A common incorrect approach was to use logarithms. A surprising number also incorrectly wrote , showing a lack of understanding of the difference between a parameter and a variable. Given that most questions in this course will be set in context, it is important that candidates learn to distinguish these differences.
Generally done well.
Many candidates found this question too difficult.
Part (g)(i) was often left blank and was the worst answered question on the paper. Part (g)(ii) was answered correctly by a number of candidates, who made use of the given answer from part (g)(i).
Part (g)(i) was often left blank and was the worst answered question on the paper. Part (g)(ii) was answered correctly by a number of candidates, who made use of the given answer from part (g)(i).