SACE Stage 2 Mathematical Methods • every question of the last eight external exams • 93 questions • difficulty from the official cohort mark data • response patterns from the official marker advice
What this is
Every question from the 2018–2025 external examinations, tagged by topic and by how the whole state cohort actually performed that year. The difficulty data comes from the SACE Board’s official Subject Assessment Advice, which reports the percentages of students reaching each mark in every question. Use it to aim your revision at the right level of question — not too easy, not (yet) too hard.
In the Cohort performance column, a icon shows that the examiners described what more successful and less successful responses commonly did for that question in the official advice. Click the icon to read their findings. If a question has no icon, the advice for that year gave no point-by-point response commentary.
The last column of each table has two icons: a 👁 view icon that opens just that question in a new window, and a ↓ download icon that saves it as its own PDF (e.g. 2025-Q1.pdf) from the past-exams-by-questions folder. These PDFs use the absolute page ranges you see printed on each exam page.
Most of the cohort earned most of the marks (e.g. “85% scored 6–7 of 7”, “average 7 of 9”). These are the marks everyone can bank.
The cohort lands mid-range: a routine start, then a harder finish (e.g. “mean 56%”, “37% full marks but 27% scored 3 or fewer”). The biggest share of exam marks lives here.
The cohort mean was below about 50%, or very few students finished it (e.g. “8% full marks, 22% scored zero”). Usually the last question of a booklet, a conjecture-and-prove finish, or an unfamiliar twist. Early parts are still worth attempting — see below.
How to use it in your revision
A guide by goal:
What the data says: the derivative warm-up (Q1) is the most reliable bankable mark in the exam, appearing every year in the Accessible band. Reading graphs of f′ and the conjecture-and-prove finishes are the persistent low-scoring spots.
What the data says: routine distribution-table and binomial parts are consistently among the stronger results in the paper, but the non-routine twists — three-draw sums via combinations, moment-generating functions, geometric-type games — split the cohort sharply.
What the data says: rectangle estimates and straightforward definite integrals land in the Moderate band with decent full-marks rates; kinematics is reliably Moderate; rate-in/rate-out models and exact-area chains with logarithms are among the hardest questions SACE has set.
What the data says: standalone log-law and log-transformation questions have produced some of the worst cohort results in eight years (2018’s Q12 was the single hardest question of that exam) — yet short ln derivatives inside the warm-ups are reliably banked. The gap is law fluency and transformation language, not calculus.
What the data says: normal-distribution computation questions are regularly among the best answered in the paper, but pdf calculus (normalising constants, exact means by integration, modes and medians via calculus) is reliably Moderate-to-Demanding and polarises the cohort.
What the data says: computing a confidence interval is one of the best-banked skills in the exam (means of 74–75% appear repeatedly) — what caps marks is the interpretation finish: claims, interval positions, reverse-engineering sample sizes, and the lower-bound-zero edge case.
Reading the table — three things worth knowing