They never acknowledged that they had either 1) created a non-existent situation or 2) made a very very bad assumption about PT.

]]>That is pretty bad. You’ve definitely got a case that this is the worst Math Regents question of all time.

In 2004, did the official correction begin with “Due to the variations in the ways segments intersect with circles across NY State…”?

]]>http://jd2718.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/my-favorite-bad-exam-target-math-b-and-a-puzzle/

I guess things aren’t getting any better!

I’m not sure what the problem is with 2004 #33. I can’t the official test/rubric (your link doesn’t get me there). Is it the strong suggestion that PT is tangent to the circle, thereby encouraging students to use Power-of-a-Point? I don’t think anything in the given requires that PT be tangent.

]]>I see your point, but by my rubric their response still earns a 0 as “Completely incorrect, irrelevant, or incoherent”.

]]>Inexcusably awful. Start with the arcs, get an answer. Or with the segments, get a different answer. Mix and match, get more answers.

(The problem can be solved with the measures given, only if you notice that they failed to to make the external segment tangent to the circle – in fact, that segment is nearly perpendicular to the tangent at that point…. Not their intent).

Jonathan

]]>I have three analysis books on my shelf, all allow to be a preimage, and not a function. Marsden distinguishes between and the function by writing “the function”:

For and , we define , and for we define to be the set . We call f(A) the *image* of A under *f* and the *inverse image*, or *preimage*, of B under *f*.

Note. We can form for a set even though *f* might not be one-to-one or onto.

That is, of course, not what Albany meant, they were just wrong, but it makes the discussion more interesting.

]]>