CHEMISTRY · Pearson Edexcel IGCSE
CHEMISTRY/11
C (Core Theory)
Chemistry · 2023 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Pearson Edexcel
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.4 / 5
180
195 min
Chemical calculations and stoichiometry
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
180
Duration
195 min
Session difficulty
3.4 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
A significant portion of the marks lay in quantitative analysis.
Stoichiometry was highly tested, particularly in multi-step moles calculations such as determining the value of x x x in hydrated sodium sulfate and the gas volume calculation at rtp for methane and hydrogen.
Energetics also carried high marks, with the 5-mark molar enthalpy calculation for pentanol combustion acting as a major grade differentiator.
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.
Mathematical & Calculation
Weight: 7100%Practical & Graphical
Weight: 686%Chemical Nomenclature
Weight: 457%Theoretical Explanation
Weight: 229%
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
Examiner report — national grade boundaries and question-level commentary
Level 9
Approx. 79% of maximum mark
Level 8
Approx. 67% of maximum mark
Level 7
Approx. 54% of maximum mark
Level 6
Approx. 47% of maximum mark
Level 5
Approx. 39% of maximum mark
Level 4
Approx. 32% of maximum mark
Level 3
Approx. 25% of maximum mark
Level 2
Approx. 18% of maximum mark
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 “Give” questions.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Match the expected response style for “State” questions.
Show formula, substitution, and unit; method marks need visible working.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Match the expected response style for “Draw” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Name” 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
Chemical formulae, equations and calculations
27 marks this session
Alcohols
17 marks this session
Rates of reaction
12 marks this session
Alkenes
12 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
Chemical formulae, equations and calculations
Energetics
Crude oil
Elements, compounds and mixtures
Alcohols
Reactivity series
Rates of reaction
Alkenes
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1C:
Paper 2C:
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
Chemical formulae, equations and calculations
27 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAlcohols
17 marks this session
Practise in RevuiRates of reaction
12 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAlkenes
12 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
A significant portion of the marks lay in quantitative analysis.
- 2Message
Stoichiometry was highly tested, particularly in multi-step moles calculations such as determining the value of x x x in hydrated sodium sulfate and the gas volume calculation at rtp for methane and hydrogen.
- 3Message
Energetics also carried high marks, with the 5-mark molar enthalpy calculation for pentanol combustion acting as a major grade differentiator.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2023 2023
Chemistry
A significant portion of the marks lay in quantitative analysis. Stoichiometry was highly tested, particularly in multi-step moles calculations such as determining the value of x x x in hydrated sodium sulfate and the gas volume calculation at rtp for methane and hydrogen. Energe
A significant portion of the marks lay in quantitative analysis.
Stoichiometry was highly tested, particularly in multi-step moles calculations such as determining the value of x x x in hydrated sodium sulfate and the gas volume calculation at rtp for methane and hydrogen.
Energetics also carried high marks, with the 5-mark molar enthalpy calculation for pentanol combustion acting as a major grade differentiator.
- Total marks
- 180
- Duration
- 195 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.4 / 5
Session analysis
A significant portion of the marks lay in quantitative analysis. Stoichiometry was highly tested, particularly in multi-step moles calculations such as determining the value of x x x in hydrated sodium sulfate and the gas volume calculation at rtp for methane and hydrogen. Energetics also carried high marks, with the 5-mark molar enthalpy calculation for pentanol combustion acting as a major grade differentiator.
Updated Jun 13, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1C:
Paper 2C:
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.
81% 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.
Short Answer
60·24·33%
Calculation
40·10·22%
Structured Explanation
35·8·19%
Practical Skills & Graphing
25·6·14%
Equation & Structural Drawing
20·12·11%
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 1C - Section …
0.90 m/minPaper 1C - Section …
0.92 m/minPaper 2C - Section …
0.95 m/minTotal marks
115
Total time
125 min
Avg pace
0.92
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Alkanes and free-radical substitution
92%92%
Carboxylic acids and weak acid reactions
88%88%
Industrial metal extraction (Blast Furnace & Aluminium)
85%85%
States of matter and heating curves
80%80%
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Premature Rounding: A recurrent issue across both papers was candidates rounding their intermediate mole values too early (e.g., truncating 0.00409 0.00409 0.00409 mol of pentanol to 0.004 0.004 0.004 mol), which led to incorrect final answers. Students must retain full calculator values until the final calculation step.
- Incorrect Enthalpy Signs: In the pentanol energetics question, many students failed to include the negative sign for the exothermic reaction, despite the prompt explicitly asking to include a sign.
- Incomplete Chemical Test Descriptions: When describing tests, candidates often wrote down only the result (e.g., "squeaky pop") instead of the full procedure and observation (e.g., "introducing a burning splint to the gas, which burns with a squeaky pop").
- Imprecise Terminology: Students frequently confused intramolecular covalent bonds with weak intermolecular forces when explaining melting points, or referred to halogens displacing "chlorine" or "iodine" instead of "chloride" or "iodide" ions.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 2h
- Total marks
- 110
- Weighting
- 61.1%
- Question types
- Multiple Choice / Drag-and-Drop Equivalents, Short recall and identification, Graphing & plotting skills, Calculations & quantitative formulas, Longer explanation / structured logic
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.