I don’t know exactly why, but fake graphs on Regents exams really offend me. Take a look at this “sine” curve from the June, 2016 Algebra 2 Trig exam.

Looking at this graph makes me uneasy. It’s just so … *pointy. *Here’s an actual sine graph, courtesy of Desmos.

Now this fake sine curve isn’t nearly as bad as these two half-ellipses put together, but I just don’t understand why we can’t have nice graphs on these exams. It only took me a few minutes to put this together in Desmos. Let’s invest a little time in mathematical fidelity.

**Related Posts**

- Regents Recaps
- This is Not a Trig Function
- This is Not an Exponential Function
- These are Not Parabolas

That looks remarkably like an op-amp running at its slew rate limit. I first saw this on a 741 op-amp with an oscilloscope in a college lab assignment, circa 1977. But then, I’d guess the person who drew that has never seen such, but was just being lazy and/or unknowledgeable.

Here’s a description of slew rate limiting, with (correct) graphs:

http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-signal/4415482/Slew-Rate-the-op-amp-speed-limit

These fake graphs are just so disrespectful. They’re asking test-takers to take the test seriously, and there are high stakes attached to the outcome, but they won’t be bothered to do what is, as you pointed out, a minimally difficult task and make graphics that are accurate. They also just assume the test-taker won’t notice the problem. Not a good look at all, Regent’s Exam.

Even easier, they can keep the graphic and just edit one word, changing “sine” to “periodic.”

Does that change, however, push such a question out of the scope of a trigonometry exam? It shouldn’t, but I don’t know the boundaries that are imposed for subjects in the Regent’s exams.