"킬러 문항 없앤다더니 또 내셨네요?" 9모 킬러 문항을 둘러싼 교육부 vs 시민단체 논쟁을 정리해보았습니다

Since I didn't learn how to do that, I took a class on it. You're telling me to take it out, right? But is there anyone who took advantage of it? Han Geonhee solved it. Not this, guys. I can't do this. We can't say, Han Geonhee solved it. Not that. Han Geonhee Solved It I'm going to get rid of the killer pattern issue between June and September based on the government's leadership. I'm going to make sure that I can do well on the CSAT even if I only study in the public education boundary. I expected a lot of people to be less picky about the top ones. In the case of September, it's a really nice cut line, and it's even harder than June. Even math. The top ones may not be picky, but I feel like I've made some progress. I really tried. Some teachers said, this is a very healthy test. I've told you this much, but wait a minute. There are 7 killer patterns in September. Wait a minute. Wasn't it excluded? There was no Ministry of Education. It's important. The bottom line is that there was no Ministry of Education, so it was terminated. So I'll just clean this up for you. First of all, Kang Duk-gu, Kang Min-jung. It keeps coming out. Kang Duk-gu, Kang Min-jung, is now a member of the Education Committee. I often collaborate with these education-related citizens to bring up issues related to the Education Act. 7 out of 46 math patterns are killer patterns. When you think about it, there's a killer pattern in June, and there's a killer pattern in September. Let's get rid of all of this through the killer pattern prevention law. It's a matter of fact that the Ministry of Education didn't participate in the killer pattern. There was no killer pattern in September. What was there? It's kind of like this. So, looking at which participants participated in the analysis of September's killer pattern, There were 15 local teachers. I think it played a very important role. I'm teaching in public education, and I'm participating in it. I'm sure you'll be able to compare it well with the SAT. Education process expert. I know because I've prepared for a graduate school, but there's also a course about education. There are two private education content experts. Wow, I'm very curious about who the private education content expert is. One math major. It'll come out later, but it's about college math. I'd like to tell you that there was a math major. So this is what they suggested. This time, in September, in math, the ratio of high school education to public education is 15.2%. You can think of it as a total of seven patterns. In the joint advertisement of Suwon University, five patterns were found in 22 patterns. Only two problems were found in the ratio of high school education to public education. So a total of seven problems were found. That's what you're saying. But when I was announcing this, there was a post like this. It's on the citizens' website. As I read the first sentence, I... Even if I were a test taker now, I'd like to quit everything. What it feels like is that the evaluator doesn't get private education. Even if you don't repeat the SAT questions, The test taker solves the SAT test, and no one gets in the way. What the hell are you preparing for the SAT? Students who don't study hard for the SAT, They're going to repeat the basics of the SAT, and they're going to learn how to take the SAT. I'm expecting the next SAT. June and September are joint assessments. It's a joint test. It's the right attitude of the test taker to repeat those things and prepare for the SAT. Even if you don't repeat the basic questions, the test taker solves the SAT test. I hear that it is the right SAT to make sure that there is no problem. The SAT test process must be fully reviewed. Was it Hwageun that the killer culture came out until the 95th grade? The citizens themselves think like this. There's a competition for private education. Our students are suffering. I think this is a claim as a big premise. In fact, I think the reality is number two. So it's a combination of the university hierarchy and the current entrance exam system. Private education made a contrast to that. The private education caused the competition, so the students fell into misfortune. I think it's very wrong to think that this relationship should be gone. I think we need to focus on this part better than the seven questions we're going to show you in the future. But anyway, let's check out the main claim today. It's the first one. It's number 10. Solving by using the formula for the 3rd function is not covered in the educational process. Wait a minute. First of all, basically, all the claims are that EBS, which exists in public education, has been solved in a way that cannot be solved unless it is prepared for other education. But one of them is the first one. In number 10, fx-3 is x-a, x-2 squared. The process of building this formula is not covered in the public education process. This is a claim that I've never learned. If you don't solve this, you have to go to x-3 squared plus ax squared plus bx plus c, and you have to solve it in a way that has three unknowns. This is also because the current 2015 educational process has been deleted. Okay, you're in trouble. This is a violation of the public education process. Now, it's a killer question. The evaluator is punished right away. No, I know what you're saying, but stop. That's how the evaluator answers. It's question number 10. It can be solved with the third function, but if you use the given conditions first, it can be solved with only one unknown. EBS commentary is positive. The fact that I left only one unknown as x-a, I'm saying that the evaluator is saying that it has never violated the public education process. You have to know how to do that, actually. I argued that the solution proposed by the judicial committee is a better way. One problem is that the time to see if the public education process is violated or not is different. Second. The reason why I claim that this is a killer question about number 12 is that At first, we divide it into odd numbers and then divide it again. When you solve it, you naturally think that you should solve it again. But now, A1 is divided into 4k, 4k-1, 4k-2, 4k-3. The process of dividing and calculating each case is a killer question because it is a technique dealt with by a math professor majoring in college. No, everyone, you will learn a little bit in high school and a little bit in college. What you're learning in college right now can be the basis of the killer question. No, it can be in the high school education process and it can be in the college education process. Is this a killer question just because it was in college education? It can't be a logical basis right now. And even if we look at high school math, the problem below is a textbook. If so, the process of dividing the odd numbers into 3k, 3k-1, and 3k-2 is a factor that can be learned enough in high school math, and it is also listed in the textbook. I think it's a little unfair to say that this is a killer question just because it appeared in the textbook of Jung Su-ryong, a college math teacher. So it's the third question. What did this question say? The expression of the advantageous function defined in the function gx is out of the education process. In the advantageous function, the denominator can only deal with the denominator at the time of the first subtraction. Really? Is that so? When this formula written in the unknown becomes a fraction, there is no such thing as having to finish it in the first round. I'm just a little suspicious that the basis of the education process was clearly judged. Finding out that fx is 0 for f3 and 0 for f6 is the biggest key to this problem. And in fact, it looks a little complicated in the calculation process behind it, so I think it's a little unfortunate that people say it's a killer question and think that they understand what this problem is asking for. So it's like this in the textbook, but I think it's a little excessive to interpret the law related to the advantageous function. Oh, this was a problem that many students were fooled with. So now they're messing with sigma sk. So if sigma k is from 1 to 7, I know ak. No, I've never seen sigma k from 7 to sk in a textbook. But why did you give this out? Killer question. This is it. The fact that it led to a calculation error is a normal part. The second is that it is forcing a negative-negative formula that has nothing to do with the achievement function of the education process related to the sum of the blood. If this is the case, there is no such thing as the convergence of subjects. If it's so detailed and extremely destructive to the convergence of subjects, it's a problem of log function and index function. There are a lot of things like the triangle width and so on. Then that's a problem with the shape. It's a problem of log function and index function. Did you ask about the width of the shape? It's a killer question. I think it's an analysis that's not much different from this. The judge's head sounds like it's breaking. The judge's head sounds like it's creaking. Regardless of whether it's difficult or not, I think it would be good if you keep looking at whether the education process is correct or not. I'll take a look at the next one. I didn't learn the advantageous function, so I took a lecture on that part. You're telling me to take this out, right? But it's not the role of the Confessor's Advantageous Function, but the Advantageous Function. Is there a non-advantageous choice that has tasted the advantage of the Advantageous Function? Han Geon-hee solved it. Not this, guys. When I make a rebuttal, I can't say that Han Geon-hee solved it. Not that. I think this is also an appropriate analysis of the word, 22 was even very much. Why is this in 22? So it's a shame. I think it was a good analysis for those who chose the Advantageous Function. Oh, the evaluator is a lie. In the case of culture 22, the basic concept of the Advantageous Function that is learned in the Mathematics 2 textbook. Because it's actually in the Advantageous Function, there's no reason to think that the Advantageous Function is advantageous. Whether you choose the Advantageous Function or the Advantageous Function, you learn the math together. Even if you know the fact, there's no room for misunderstanding to argue about this problem. The evaluator made a comment at once. In fact, the second and fourth lines of the EBS free are the parts that are already underlined. Now, let's move on to the Advantageous Function. There are two problems for the Advantageous Function. So I looked at the Advantageous Function that I couldn't understand. Drawing a graph of a function that includes absolute values is out of the educational process. Even the possibility of division of a function that includes absolute values is educational. No, isn't this a little wrong? You don't deal with the possibility of division of a function that includes absolute values? What are you talking about? You don't deal with this? It's an example. The absolute value of fx is continuous from x to 0, but it is not possible to divide it. In the textbook that all Korean students will have, they are arguing about the absolute value of the possibility of division. So these analyzes over-interpreted the law they saw. They don't exclude the sense of reality of what students might have thought, but they feel like they've taken out a certain line of the educational process and put it back together. Now, I'm going to touch on the last 30 times. In the process of division, an overly complicated calculation came out. Cheat key. I can't review it. This is a cheat key, guys. How do you want to put this? Rebutt this. In the educational process, the word complicated is abstract. It's very abstract because it's not forbidden to avoid it. I think he's saying that this problem wasn't easy either. Anyway, I admit that it is very difficult to solve the unhappiness caused by the education of students, especially the unhappiness caused by private education. But at least there should be data that students who are taking the CSAT can understand. So this is a bit of a shame. If the students who are taking the CSAT are here now, this is the key. I don't need anything else. Regarding the announcement of the day, the school officials said, The killer model for the September mock exam was not successful. What is this? There is no problem that is violated in the educational process. Be quiet, everyone. Students don't need to look at the public education. Now, focus on EBS. What? I'll say it more than 1,000 times. If you focus on EBS, you can get the results you want in the CSAT. Guys, you have to believe this. Why? It's not that the evaluator or the private school student is participating. So, rather than the killer model, news, and heel class, rather than eating fruit with my mom, What? It's different from the mock exam. What are you trying to prepare for? It's confusing. I heard that the analysis is 100% accurate. I don't think it's for the examinees. I want to quit everything when I take the exam. What? There should be no repetition of basic problems? It's not polite to students who have dedicated 5 years, 4 years, and 3 years. It's not polite. What's the conclusion? The mock exam is important. The mock exam is the truth. What's the second one? EBS is the god. I hope you prepare hard for the last exam and get the results you want on the day of the CSAT. I just have a controversy. If you haven't heard the refutation about this, I've organized it neatly for our high school seniors. I hope you have a successful CSAT. That's all for today's article. Bye.