The operating system for education providers.
Built for learning.

1. 1Q1 · 2/3Partial

   K 2/3

   The quadratic x = 4 or x = -2 is correct, but the rejection of x = -2 is missing: since log2(x) requires x > 0, x = -2 makes the original logarithm undefined and must be rejected with that reason. The final answer should be stated as x = 4, not left as two options.

2. 2Q2 · 3/3Full

   K 3/3

   Clean, correct work throughout: log taken of both sides, isolated properly, and x = 0.232 matches the expected value.

3. 3Q3 · 2/3Partial

   K 2/3

   Sign error: log3(1/9) = -2, not 2, since 1/9 = 3^-2. The other two terms (log5 125 = 3, ln e^2 = 2) are correct, but the sign slip makes the final answer 3 instead of the correct -1.

4. 4Q4 · 3/4Partial

   T 3/4

   The rejection of b = -2 is missing: since the base of an exponential function must be positive, b = -2 should be explicitly ruled out before concluding b = 2. Everything else is correct: a = 3, 12 = 3b^2, and the final equation y = 3(2)^x.

5. 5Q5 · 2/3Partial

   C 2/3

   The asymptote should be x = -4, not x = 4, since the graph shifts 4 units left (the domain line x > -4 correctly reflects this, so the asymptote statement is just inconsistent with your own domain). Transformations (stretch, reflection, shift 4 left and 1 up) are all correctly identified.

6. 6Q6 · 4/4Full

   A 4/4

   Fully correct: the model N(t) = 500(2)^(t/3) is set up properly, 8000 = 500(2)^(t/3) is simplified to 2^4 = 2^(t/3), and t = 12 hours is reached with units included.

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.

1. 1Q1 · 9/10Partial

   K 9/10

   The thesis in paragraph one is clear and arguable, and it stays consistent through the whole essay rather than drifting. Knowledge of the play is accurate and detailed: the ghost's ambiguity, the Mousetrap scene, the prayer scene, and the final act are all placed correctly and used to build the argument. The one place detail could be sharper is the counter-evidence paragraph ("O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!"), where the plot context (this follows the First Player's speech) is assumed rather than stated.

2. 2Q2 · 9/10Partial

   T 9/10

   Every quotation is interpreted rather than just dropped in: the "devil"/"pleasing shape" lines are read as evidence Hamlet distrusts, the Mousetrap line is read for the word "conscience," and the prayer-scene quotation is unpacked as "a moral calculation." The counter-argument (that Hamlet himself calls his delay cowardice) is raised directly and answered with the Laertes/Fortinbras contrast, which is a genuinely strong move. The sentence introducing that answer ("Hamlet basically accuses himself of the very flaw his critics see, this is exactly why the charge does not hold") is a comma splice that momentarily blurs the logical turn, so the reasoning is slightly harder to follow right at its sharpest point.

3. 3Q3 · 9/10Partial

   C 9/10

   Organization is clean: each body paragraph has a topic sentence, transitions move the argument forward, and all five quotations are cited correctly in the act.scene.line format the assignment asks for. Voice stays academic throughout. One lapse: "Hamlet basically accuses himself of the very flaw his critics see, this is exactly why the charge does not hold" is a comma splice joining two independent clauses that should be separated by a period or semicolon.

4. 4Q4 · 9/10Partial

   A 9/10

   Well beyond the three-quotation minimum, with five quotations each folded into a sentence that interprets it rather than just stated. The conclusion does more than restate the introduction: it names the wider theme (thought versus action) and extends the thesis into a claim about the play's overall argument, reinforced by the Claudius/Hamlet death comparison. The Laertes and Fortinbras references in paragraph four are summarized rather than quoted directly, so the application of textual evidence there is slightly thinner than in the quotation-driven paragraphs.

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.

1. 1Q1 · 2/2Full

   T 2/2

   Both the purpose and a testable hypothesis with a reason are clearly stated.

2. 2Q2 · 3/3Full

   C 3/3

   Table includes headings, units, both solution volumes/concentrations, and all three mass measurements with the precipitate mass correctly obtained by subtraction. The qualitative observation of the immediate white precipitate is included as well.

3. 3Q3 · 2/3Partial

   K 2/3

   States of matter are missing: the equation should read CaCl2(aq) + Na2CO3(aq) → CaCO3(s) + 2 NaCl(aq). Formulas and balancing are both correct.

4. 4Q4 · 7/7Full

   A 7/7

   All steps are complete and correct: both mole calculations, correct identification of CaCl2 as limiting via the 1:1 ratio, theoretical mass of 0.500 g, and the percent yield expression evaluated to 92.4%, matching the student's own measured mass of 0.462 g.

5. 5Q5 · 1/3PartialCheck

   T 1/3

   Only one specific source with a stated direction is given (precipitate adhering to the beaker/stirring rod, which lowers the yield). The second point, 'human error when we read the graduated cylinder,' does not state a direction (over- or under-estimate) and reads as a generic human error, which does not earn credit on its own. A second specific source, such as fine precipitate passing through the filter paper or incomplete drying leaving residual water mass, with its direction, would earn further marks.

6. 6Q6 · 2/2Full

   C 2/2

   The conclusion restates the purpose with the numerical result and ties it back to the hypothesis.

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.

1. 1Q1 · 2/2Full

   K 2/2

   Author, date, type and place are all correctly identified, including the detail that McCrae served as an army doctor near Ypres.

2. 2Q2 · 2.5/3Partial

   K 2.5/3

   Stanza 2's summary is incomplete: it only states that the soldiers are dead, missing the stanza's core contrast that just days ago they were alive, saw dawn and sunset, and loved. Stanzas 1 and 3 are both captured accurately.

3. 3Q3 · 4/4Full

   T 4/4

   Both the speaker/audience identification and the explanation of the purpose shift are clear and supported with direct quotations from the poem.

4. 4Q4 · 4/4Full

   A 4/4

   Both uses (Victory Bonds posters and recruiting) and the explanation of effectiveness, the soldier's authentic voice and the guilt created by the poem's demand, are well covered with supporting evidence.

5. 5Q5 · 3/3Full

   C 3/3

   The paragraph is clear and organized, quotes evidence directly from the poem, and names a real limit of the source (it doesn't describe daily trench life and was written to persuade rather than record).

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.

1. APart A · 3/5Partial

   K 3/5

   Item 2: 'a allé' uses the wrong auxiliary; aller takes être, so it should be 'est allée'. Item 4: auxiliary 'ont' is correct but the participle should be 'pris', not 'prendu'. Item 5: auxiliary 'suis' is correct, but with 'une fille' the participle needs the feminine agreement 'restée'. Items 1 and 3 are correct.

2. BPart B · 4/5Partial

   K 4/5

   Item 10: 'pas' must surround the auxiliary ('n'ont pas visité'), not come after the participle; 'n'ont visité pas' is incorrect placement. Items 6-9 all correctly place ne...pas around the auxiliary.

3. CPart C · 4/4Full

   C 4/4

   Both responses use correct passé composé and form complete, clear sentences with appropriate detail.

4. DPart D · 6/6Full

   A 6/6

   Five clear sentences with seven correctly conjugated passé composé verbs (auxiliary and participle agree throughout, including the reflexive 'je me suis couché'). Vocabulary covers activities, places and times of day, and transitions like 'Ensuite', 'L'après-midi' and 'Enfin' organize the paragraph clearly.

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.

1. 1Q1 · 3/3FullPage 1

   C 3/3

   Header comment includes filename, name, and a description of the program's purpose. Function and variable names are descriptive, every function has a docstring, and the comments on 'sort a copy, not the list' and 'int() fails on words' explain the non-obvious logic. Indentation is consistent throughout.

2. 2Q2 · 3/3FullPage 1

   K 3/3

   Correct sum via the loop, correct division by len(scores), and the value is returned rather than printed.

3. 3Q3 · 2/4PartialPage 1

   T 2/4

   The even-count case is missing: ordered[middle] only returns the upper of the two middle values rather than their average. For [60, 75, 80, 95] this gives 80 instead of 77.5, which the student's own test plan #2 catches and flags as unexplained. Sorting a copy with sorted() and the odd-case logic are both correct.

4. 4Q4 · 3/3FullPage 1

   K 3/3

   Boundaries are correct and in order (80, 70, 60, 50), and every branch returns a string.

5. 5Q5 · 2/3PartialPage 1

   A 2/3

   No range check for 0-100: as the student's own test plan #4 shows, entering 150 is accepted and included in the mean instead of being rejected. The non-number handling (try/except ValueError) and the re-prompt loop that keeps asking instead of crashing are both correct.

6. 6Q6 · 4/4FullPage 2

   A 4/4

   Five complete cases are given, exceeding the four required, and they cover multiple edge cases (even count, non-number, out-of-range, empty list). Case 2 honestly records the actual median output (80) differing from the expected (77.5), which still earns credit since the discrepancy is documented rather than hidden.

As handed in. Switch to Marked by Margin to see the marks.