Question 22N.2.SL.TZ0.a

In general, the Data based question was well answered. In (a) all but a handful of candidates failed to state 2.5, but unfortunately many failed to also include the unit. In (b) Most gave a difference, but similarities were rarer. The statement that both show a decline would have earned the mark. A surprising number were confused by the arithmetic involved in (c), with most calculating that the decrease was 8000, but either forgetting to subtract this from the 400,000, or doing it incorrectly. In (d) almost everyone counted 5 correctly and in (e) a large proportion gained both marks for a comparison and a contrast. The calculation in (f) involved the use of ratios. There was a G2 comment that this was not common knowledge. However, as all IB students continue to study mathematics at some level, it was not considered beyond their capabilities. 40$$% of the students gained the mark. A similar number gained the mark in (g), usually for an correct answer, but many answered in terms of the actual ratios, which did not gain the mark. In (h) 80$$% were able to spot that there was an inverse relationship between high lipid content and survivability, but in (i) fewer were able to cite the 10:1 diet as closest to the normal diet, some failing to state the reason. The answers t (j) were very varied, with most gaining marks for the possible loss of natural food sources or
the bees having to look for others. Better candidates noted that there was no control where the bees were fed their normal diet as it was a simulation, not using pollen. There was a G2 comment that the graph was somewhat crowded and should have been bigger. This is perhaps true.