We, the CAPE students of 2024 who sat the Chemistry Unit 2 Paper 2 this year felt so strongly about this for the reasons listed below:

1) There was no spread of the objectives. For example, Module 3 only tested the Ammonia Industry (barely) which comprises merely 3/40 (7.5%) of the module 3 objectives. Also, only 4/43 (9.3%) of the module 2 objectives and 5/38 (13%) of the module 1 objectives were tested. Overall, only 12/121 (9.9%) of the unit 2 syllabus objectives were tested. This indicates poor measurement and evaluation.

2) In question 1, too many marks were allocated to structural isomerism. In part (b), there was no reference back to the simple statement before part (a) of the question about C8H18 and its isomers. Thus, it was unclear whether or not part b referred to C8H18 or if the students were expected to show examples of isomers of a molecular formula of their choosing. This should not have been implied, rather it must instead have been definitely stated to avoid confusion in the examination room.

3) In Module 1, a structure referred to as compound C was asked about twice, but there was no compound C labelled on the examination paper. Thus, students should not be penalised if they did not use the compound expected by CXC since they did not label or specify what they wanted.

4) The objectives were not thoroughly assessed concerning the unit 2 syllabus. Rather the unit 2 topics were tested against Unit 1 objectives. For instance, although Unit 2 recommends using data from a potentiometric titration in module 2, it was tested at a Unit 1 level. This involved drawing the titration curves and showing the pH at the end point. The Unit 2 objective did not properly refer to the Unit 1 syllabus, thus it would not have been focused on in Unit 2.

5) In module 2, the equations were misleading for the calculations as the equation between aspirin and NaOH was featured at the start of the question containing fully displayed structural formulae, where aspirin reacted with NaOH in a 2:1 ratio, but they asked about option 2 in the calculations where aspirin and NaOH reacted in a 1:1 ratio.

6) Too many marks were allocated to drawing titration curves in module 2, which is more of a unit 1 objective. The reference to this objective was only made at specific objective 2.5 which is for calculations. The link was not made properly and does not warrant an entire 6 marks allocated to drawing titration curves.

7) The calculations for aspirin tablet were brought as a direct titration. Instead, the calculation for the aspirin tablet should have been a back titration, because a direct titration is not a feasible option since aspirin is insoluble in water. 

8) Due to the high emphasis on Unit 1 content, consider therefore how a student who wrote Unit 2 Chemistry in 2024 before ever writing Unit 1 chemistry would cope with this paper. 

9) Too many marks in this paper were allocated to questions about indicators, which is not even on the unit 2 syllabus. This is unacceptable as even in the Unit 1 syllabus, only methyl orange and phenolphthalein were mentioned.

10) For the module 3 question, candidates were asked how the conditions of the Haber-Bosch process affect the rate of reactant molecule collisions. This is a unit 1 objective and would not have been focused on in unit 2. A more suitable alternative to components of this 30 mark question on the Haber-Bosch Process would be the inclusion of other aspects of the syllabus that are related. For instance, the production of raw materials for the process or even the Nitrogen cycle. Both of these are actually on the unit 2 syllabus, unlike factors that affect rate of reactant collisions. 

Consequently, these would have led to the students becoming increasingly frustrated with the ambiguity of the questions as well as the high unit 1 and low unit 2 syllabus content. This in turn, may have affected their ability to finish the paper and think clearly for the duration of the examination.