Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Detail of argumentation in C2011

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default Detail of argumentation in C2011

    Hello,
    this week end i just did the last year's C paper.

    The Examiner's Report under "Claim 1" states:

    "Although the equivalence of teeth versus protrusions and sinusoidal versus corrugated was
    generally well-explained, this was not the case for desired length and the drying step of fixing
    the flux to the surface."

    In my answer, i wrote for the first feature that it is implicit to cut it at the desired length and that it is not limiting (if the apparatus of A6 does not comprise a cutter that can only cut at a fixed length).

    For the second one, i wrote that the important thing is the final result of having flux fixed on the corrugated fin.

    But this "simple" argumentation took time, because i embarked in a hunting expedition through all the documents to find support for arguments, without finding anything! (and wasting time!!!)

    However, for my big surprise, the reasoning given in the Examiner's proposed solution is:

    "It is implicit that the drying step in Annex 6 fixes the flux to the surface of the plate.
    In the present context, the feature of "cutting the plate to the desired length" is disclosed implicitly in Annex 6."

    I was wondering if and how many marks can be lost for not arguing the two above features. Moreover, the argumentation given sounds to me strange.
    Last edited by mec; 05-03-12 at 05:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    2,251

    Default

    There are 6 marks for use of information and 9 for argumentation. Given the number of points to be made, it seems likely a couple of marks are at stake here. Remember you do not have to use the precise words in the Examiner's Report. With regard to the length, would you cut to a length that is not a desired length? The drying step is more difficult, but somehow you need to explain how the flux is fixed to the surface of the plate. You first need to notice this needs attention (which you have) and then you need to provide a plausible explanation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Thanks again.

    For the 2/3 points for arguing the two above features i would have lost more than 10mintues in searching through the documents the support for the reasoning, thinking that i may have missed something during the analysis....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •