MATHEMATICS-ANALYSIS-AND-APPROACHES · IB Diploma Programme
MATHEMATICS-ANALYSIS-AND-APPROACHES/11
Paper 1
Mathematics Analysis and Approaches · June 2025 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: International Baccalaureate Organization
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.8 / 5
160
180 min
Calculus (Integration, Differentiation, and Kinematics)
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
160
Duration
180 min
Session difficulty
3.8 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers.
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world contextual modeling.
The transition from pure mechanical calculations to conceptual optimization (e.g., fitting a solid cylinder inside a hollow sphere in Paper 1 Question 9 and the card pyramid in Paper 2 Question 8) represents the classic IB style—requiring deep spatial reasoning and algebraic confidence under pressure.
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Algebraic Manipulation
Weight: 9100%Utilization
Weight: 778%Conceptual
Weight: 667%Proof
Weight: 556%Geometric Visualisation
Weight: 444%Contextual Modeling
Weight: 222%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
IB subject report — grade distributions, IA weighting, and HL/SL distinctions
Level 7
Excellent — top band for competitive university offers
Level 6
Very good — strong HL performance
Level 5
Good — solid pass at higher level
Level 4
Satisfactory — minimum for many university credits
Level 3
Mediocre
Level 2
Poor
Level 1
Very poor
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “Find” questions.
Match the expected response style for “that” questions.
Match the expected response style for “down” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Sketch” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Solve” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Determine” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.1
Min per mark: 1.1
Min per mark: 1.1
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Calculus
39 marks this session
Number and algebra
36 marks this session
Functions
30 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Calculus
Number and algebra
Geometry and trigonometry
Statistics and probability
Functions
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator):
Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed):
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Calculus
39 marks this session
Practise in RevuiNumber and algebra
36 marks this session
Practise in RevuiFunctions
30 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers.
- 2Message
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world contextual modeling.
- 3Message
The transition from pure mechanical calculations to conceptual optimization (e.g., fitting a solid cylinder inside a hollow sphere in Paper 1 Question 9 and the card pyramid in Paper 2 Question 8) represents the classic IB style—requiring deep spatial reasoning and algebraic confidence under pressure.
- 4Message
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2025 2025
Mathematics Analysis and Approaches
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers. Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers.
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world contextual modeling.
The transition from pure mechanical calculations to conceptual optimization (e.g., fitting a solid cylinder inside a hollow sphere in Paper 1 Question 9 and the card pyramid in Paper 2 Question 8) represents the classic IB style—requiring deep spatial reasoning and algebraic confidence under pressure.
- Total marks
- 160
- Duration
- 180 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.8 / 5
Session analysis
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers. Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world contextual modeling. The transition from pure mechanical calculations to conceptual optimization (e.g., fitting a solid cylinder inside a hollow sphere in Paper 1 Question 9 and the card pyramid in Paper 2 Question 8) represents the classic IB style—requiring deep spatial reasoning and algebraic confidence under pressure.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 (Non-Calculator):
Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed):
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
72% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Section B
(Long-response)
93·6·58%
Section A
(Short-response)
67·12·42%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 Section A
0.90 m/minPaper 1 Section B
0.88 m/minPaper 2 Section A
0.90 m/minTotal marks
125
Total time
140 min
Avg pace
0.89
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Trigonometric Graphs and Sine/Cosine Rule Applications
85%85%
Vector Geometry / 3D lines (re-introduced concepts)
80%80%
Executive Difficulty Verdict
This exam cohort was met with a moderately challenging pair of papers. Paper 1 (Non-Calculator) demanded high algebraic precision, particularly in the multi-step logarithm questions and kinematics, while Paper 2 (Calculator Allowed) pushed students to their limits with real-world contextual modeling. The transition from pure mechanical calculations to conceptual optimization (e.g., fitting a solid cylinder inside a hollow sphere in Paper 1 Question 9 and the card pyramid in Paper 2 Question 8) represents the classic IB style—requiring deep spatial reasoning and algebraic confidence under pressure.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 2h
- Total marks
- 110
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.