This was a ten mark question examining learning curves and rates. In part (a) candidates were asked to calculate a price for a new seat. This part was worth 5 marks.
Candidates had to work out the incremental time it took to make the 8th seat as this was the point at which the learning curve stopped. This part of the question was answered well, with the majority of candidates scoring full marks.
Where errors were made, it was usually because a candidate had forgotten to multiply up the cumulative average time for 7 units and then for 8 units, and then work out the incremental time for the 8th unit by taking the difference between these two totals.
Instead the difference between the cumulative average time for 7 units and the cumulative average time for 8 units was calculated, without first multiplying up these figures by the number of units.
Part b (i) asked for a calculation of the actual rate of learning that took place in the period. Although this hasn’t been examined before answers on the whole were very good with many candidates getting the calculation correct.
A common problem, however, was to correctly work out the actual rate of 70% but then to say that this meant that the learning rate was slower than the originally expected rate of 75%.
Candidates should note that when the percentage decreases, it means that the learning force has learnt more quickly than anticipated.
Part b (ii) asked for a brief explanation of whether the adjusted price would be higher or lower than the original
price calculated in part (a), taking into account the actual learning rate calculated in b (i).
It was a simple requirement that just required candidates to interpret their answer in b (i) a little bit more. Most candidates
answered this well.
It should be noted that the requirement did NOT ask candidates to calculate the new price so if this was done no mark was awarded for this calculation.
If a requirement says ‘explain’ then an explanation must be given in order to earn marks. A calculation cannot replace an explanation.