2024 A-Level · Paper 1 · Question 8
Differentiating three times directly is punishing. Part (a) hands you a relation between , and instead — and once you have that, every further derivative is one differentiation of a short expression rather than one of an ever-growing one. Beside the solution, the function and its approximations, drawn together.
Given , show that , finding .
Approach
Differentiate twice with the chain rule, then look at the result and hunt for the pieces you already have names for. The whole art of this part is not expanding everything out: and are already sitting inside , and the target tells you they are what you are meant to find.
Let , so and . Then
Differentiating again, by the product rule on and :
Now recognise the pieces. , and , so
To check your answer:
At : , so and . The relation then predicts , which agrees with computing directly ✓.
.
Where the marks go
Two chain rules and one product rule, and the inner derivative is used twice — once with a minus that cancels the one from , and once that does not. Writing explicitly and keeping it as until the last line is what stops the signs drifting; substituting back in at every step buries the structure the question wants you to see.
By differentiating the result in part (a), find the first three non-zero terms of the Maclaurin expansion of .
Approach
Maclaurin needs the derivatives at , not as functions. So evaluate what you already have at , differentiate the relation once more to reach the third derivative, evaluate that too, and assemble. "By differentiating the result in part (a)" is an instruction, not a suggestion — it is the cheap route to .
At , using :
Differentiating the relation , with the product rule on :
and at :
The Maclaurin series is , so
To check your answer:
Expand from standard series instead. , so , giving . Then ✓ — the same three terms by a completely different route.
.
Where the marks go
"First three non-zero terms" — and the term is zero, so you must go as far as . Stopping at because that is three terms written down loses two marks. The other loss is dividing by the wrong factorial: the coefficient of is , not .
The first two non-zero terms of the expansion equal the first two non-zero terms of the series for . Using standard series from MF26, find and .
Approach
MF26 gives , which needs a leading 1 — so factor out of the square root first. Then expand, take two terms, and match against .
Factoring out:
and expanding with , :
Matching the first two non-zero terms with :
To check your answer:
Expanding the answer back out:
✓, matching the first two non-zero terms of part (b). The two curves are drawn together in the model — they agree to the eye near the origin and part company as grows, which is exactly what "first two terms" promises and no more.
and .
Note — why the third terms need not agree
They do not: the expansion of is even, so its next term is in , while has a . The question only ever claims agreement to two terms, and the model shows the two curves separating precisely where that claim runs out.
Every Ten-Year Series question, worked in full — with the reasoning written out, the traps named, and the curves you can actually take hold of.