…
2026 WACE Mathematics Applications exam: What to learn from last year's mistakes
WACE Mathematics Applications is on Friday 6 November at 9:20 am, WA time.
Last year's mean was 62.78%. The examiner report highlights financial calculations, moving averages and interpreting network cuts as areas to revisit. I've checked the report against the marking key. Here are four useful fixes.
1. Question 7(a): Name the moving average completely
Where students went wrong: Identifying a moving average from the time-series graph was a reported weakness.
What they should have done: This question required a six-point centred moving average. “Six-point” alone did not communicate the complete method.
My revision check: identify the seasonal cycle first. For an even number of observations, explain why centring aligns the average with an observation. Practise explaining the method instead of memorising a label.
2. Question 8(d): Match the payment schedule
Where students went wrong: Equal quarterly deposits needed to reach a target were another reported weakness.
What they should have done: Use 12 quarters, a $12,500 starting balance, a $20,000 target and 3.2% annual interest, with quarterly payments and compounding. The required deposit was $497.98.
My practice routine: draw the cash-flow timeline before opening the finance solver. Check payment timing, periods and cash-flow signs. Substitute the payment back into the model to check the target is reached.
3. Question 12: Separate annuity and perpetuity calculations
Where students went wrong: The report identifies this question as particularly challenging.
What they should have done: Use the remaining capital at the changeover date. In part (c), the annual perpetuity payment was about $118.85, below the $130 required.
My revision check: circle every change in rate, frequency or investment type. Treat each change as a new stage. Write the balance carried between stages explicitly so you do not accidentally restart from the original deposit.
4. Question 13(c): A cut gives an upper bound
Where students went wrong: Interpreting maximum-flow cuts was a reported weakness.
What they should have done: The two cuts established a flow no greater than 109 litres per minute. The later calculation found 107 litres per minute, or 6420 per hour.
My practice check: keep capacity, feasible flow and minimum cut separate. If you claim a maximum, show how it is achieved and why more cannot pass. Finish by checking the requested units.
One final habit from the report: show clear working even on short questions. A calculator screen is useful to you; the marker needs the setup on the page.
Sources: 2025 examiner report and calculator-assumed marking key. Practice routines above are my suggestions.
Sorry guys, shameless plug, I gotta do this. I'm the founder of ATARMAXXING, so take a look at the WACE Mathematics Applications practice exams with worked answers if you want more timed practice. You can preview the Maths Applications pack before buying. Mark the setup, interpretation and units as well as the final number.
0 repliesReply