*****Official AP Chemistry After-test Thread*****

Test Preparation
81

<p>Sure thing. This is probably more detailed than you want, but for anyone else who wants to know...</p>

<p>The Scoring Table for the 1999 Exam</p>

<p>Section I: Multiple Choice</p>

<p>[(Number correct out of 75) - (.25 x number wrong)] x .9600</p>

<p>Section II: Free Response</p>

<p>Question 1: (Number correct out of 9) x 1.9556</p>

<p>Question 2 or 3: (Number correct out of 9) x 1.9556</p>

<p>Question 4: (Number correct out of 15) x 1.8800</p>

<p>Question 5: (Number correct out of 8) x 1.6500</p>

<p>Question 6: (Number correct out of 8) x 1.6500</p>

<p>Question 7 or 8: (Number correct out of 8) x 1.6500</p>

<p>** Don't round these values!!</p>

<p>Section I weighted + Section II weight = composite score</p>

<p>** Round the composite score to the nearest whole number.</p>

<p>100-160 5
82-99 4
57-81 3
35-56 2
0-34 1</p>

<p>The 1999 AP test was steeper than 1993 -- I know that much, lol -- and it was apparently considered to be one of the easier tests. I wonder if this test is considered easy.</p>

82

<p>Our teacher gave us the 1999 test for practice and it was much easier than today's test.</p>

83

<p>Yeah, the 1999 free response questions were pretty easy. I didn't get full points on all of them, though (on question 6 I actually got only 4/8!) but I pulled off a 5 with 138 total points. I just hope I can repeat that.</p>

<p>I'm so glad the test wasn't like 2003...didn't that one require an electricity question? Ick. Maybe I'm thinking of 2004. Either way, that is not my strong point.</p>

84

<p>Loganr-</p>

<p>I didnt do that question, thus i have no idea what ur talking about. BUT: oxidation always takes place at the anode. Always.</p>

85

<p>I love propanoic acid!!!
;)</p>

86

<p>but it was an electrolitic cell, thus your are trying to do the opposite of what youd do in a galvaneic cell right.. well thats what our teacher told us :(</p>

87

<p>Formal Charge is the number of lone electrons + 1/2 (shared).</p>

<p>No talking about MC ;)</p>

<p>:)</p>

88

<p>any body want to talk about the test on AIM? we can discuss it further than on this dang board..
famuthrbruthr </p>

<p>is my Sn</p>

89

<p>MACCASWEETIE - Thanx so much, I wonder whether the curve for this test will be closer to the 1999 (100 composite score for a 5) or 2002 (107 composite score for a 5) or somewhere in between.</p>

<p>What do you guyz think?</p>

90

<p>I personally thought it was much harder than previous tests I took, so I'm hoping for a low curve.</p>

91

<ol>
<li>2002 was an easy year.</li>
</ol>

92

<p>Is 7 points really that much? to be on the safe side, I'd just take like 104 or something. I thought it was easier, and am freaking out about questions that I was sure about a while ago. <em>sigh</em> didn't like lab and I hate bonding...<em>shakes head</em> Thermochemistry is much better...oh well...i'm just glad IT'S OVER</p>

93

<p>Just calculated my score using the individual ranges. For conservative estimate (58 right/17 wrong MC, 6 on FR1, 2 on FR2, 15 on FR4, 7 on FR5, 4 on FR6, 8 on FR7) I get a 108 - still a five even on an easy curve.</p>

<p>Calculating on what I think I got: (65 right/10 wrong MC, 9 on FR1, 3 on FR2, 15 on FR4, 8 on FR5, 4 on FR6, 8 on FR7) I get a 125. Nice. So no matter the curve, I'll still get a 5. I'm sure I got more than 58 right on MC (more around 65) and I think I got more than 6 points on the Equilibrium FR, so I'm in line for a 5!!</p>

94

<p>Haha I bombed that first equilibrium problem so badly. It really really sucks because equilibrium is one of my stronger points but I just blanked out and did the entire thing wrong. I'll be lucky to get 3 points for it. I'm expecting 1-2 points on it...</p>

<p>I calculated my scores that I expect, and basically if I did number 1 the right way (the way I KNEW OUT TO DO BUT I DIDN'T DO) I would have gotten a very solid 5. It ****es me off. I was gettings 5's on practice tests a month before the exam, and then I messed up like crazy. Now it might be a 4. Sigh.</p>

95

<p>this test was nothing compared to the 1999 prax tests-- gosh i barely studied for this and i still might have gotten a 5, if there was a 4.5 i'd have that for sure.. just wish we practiced more multiple choice without having calculators on hand.. i can barely do division >.<. um.. picked 3 and 8 on the frq's.. idunno.. thought they were the easiest ones .. mostly cuz i don't knoe ANNNYTHING on imf's.. and i was lucky to have memorized chemical kinetics for 0, 1st and 2nd rate rxns.. just for that vertical axis question tho.</p>

96

<p>I've heard that the surefire cutoff for a 5 is 130 out of 160 from my teacher.</p>

97

<p>How the hell would your teacher know? 130/160 is ridiculous. I hope you were joking :O</p>

98

<p>No way - range for a five is around 100-107/160</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
on frq number 8 , did everybody realize that it was a electrolitc cell
thus the reduction occured in the anode , i hope im right...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>According to Princeton Review, "The AN OX / RED CAT rule applies to the electrolytic cell in the same way that it applies to the galvanic cell" (223). That is to say, oxidation occured at the anode and reduction at the cathode.</p>

100

<p>Since I was reading it the night before the exam, I'm 99% sure ARCO says the exact same thing as PR on that.</p>