Question bank — Trigonometric integrals — sinᵐ·cosⁿ cases, tan and sec cases
True or false — justify
Recall The parity rule only cares whether an exponent is odd or even, not how large it is.
True — parity method for ::: True. Splitting off one factor from an odd power always leaves an even power, and identities only rewrite even powers. So behaves exactly like : peel one, convert the rest.
Recall
can be done by the substitution . False — both even blocks substitution ::: False. Peeling one leaves , an odd leftover that cannot fully convert, and the spare has no matching factor. Both-even forces power reduction.
Recall In
with even, we always let . True — even secant → tan-u ::: True. , so a spare becomes . Since is even, is an even secant power that rewrites entirely in .
Recall
. False — dx is not d(tan x) ::: False. The power rule needs the variable's own differential; here . Correct route: , giving .
Recall
, by analogy with . False — sec and tan integrate differently ::: False. That analogy is a trap. (from multiplying by ). Only gives .
Recall For
both strategies (save , or save ) work. True — both parities favourable ::: True. power is even and power is odd, so either or succeeds. Pick whichever converts more cleanly; answers match after using .
Recall Power reduction and
-substitution can never be used in the same problem. False — they combine ::: False. After power reduction you often meet or , and the latter needs another power reduction or a small mental substitution. They stack freely.
Spot the error
Recall A student writes: "
has the odd power in , so let ." Wrong choice of u ::: Error: you set to the peeled function. You save one for , which forces . Rule: is the function whose power stays even.
Recall "
with gives ." Missing sign ::: Error: , so . The integral is . Dropping the minus flips the whole answer's sign.
Recall "
: tan power even, so I'll save and let ." Even tan is not the trigger ::: Error: saving requires an even sec power, but here is odd — no spare leftover. And power is even, not odd, so the route fails too. This mixed case needs Reduction formulas or Integration by parts.
Recall "
." Integrated a product termwise wrongly ::: Error: you multiplied instead of substituting. After : .
Recall "
by the power rule." Same dx trap as tan^2 ::: Error: , and there's no odd factor to peel. Use : answer .
Recall "In
, let ." Wrong u for tan ::: Error: then , but there's no spare — the is in the denominator. Let , , giving .
Why questions
Recall Why must the
saved factor be exactly the derivative of the chosen , not just "any leftover"? The engine is u-sub ::: Because -substitution only works when the integrand is . The saved factor literally becomes ; if it isn't 's derivative, there's no valid substitution to perform.
Recall Why does an
odd exponent guarantee the method works, but an even one doesn't? Odd → even leftover ::: Peeling one factor from an odd power leaves an even power, and the Pythagorean identities (, etc.) only rewrite squares. An even power minus one is odd, which can't be fully converted.
Recall Why do we derive
instead of memorizing it separately? One identity, divided ::: It's just divided through by . Deriving it shows it's not a new fact, and reminds you , — useful when things go wrong.
Recall Why does the
trick (multiply by ) work? Numerator = derivative of denominator ::: After multiplying, the numerator is exactly . So it becomes with .
Recall Why is power reduction the
only option for the both-even case? No derivative-shaped spare ::: Substitution needs a spare factor equal to ; even/even has no such lone factor to peel. Power reduction sidesteps substitution entirely by lowering exponents via double-angle identities.
Recall Why does saving
require the power to be odd? Even leftover to convert ::: Removing one leaves an even power, which converts to . Then everything is in with . An even power would leave an odd, unconvertible remainder.
Edge cases
Recall What happens to the parity method when
, e.g. ? m=0 is even ::: counts as even (zero factors). Since power is odd, save one , let : .
Recall Both exponents zero:
. Does the method apply? Degenerate: just dx ::: That's . No trig at all — the "both even" branch technically applies but trivially; no reduction needed.
Recall
— which case, and does the machinery even fire? Direct antiderivative ::: power is even, so nominally , gives . It works but is really just recognizing directly.
Recall
under Case B parity: (odd tan), . Does "save " work? n=0 breaks the sec-tan save ::: No — there's no to form . With you drop to the memory-anchor: rewrite as and use , giving .
Recall For
(both even, small powers), is there a shortcut over double power reduction? Double-angle shortcut ::: Yes: , so the integrand is . Integrate to — one power reduction instead of two.
Recall What if an exponent is
negative, e.g. ? Does parity still guide you? Odd cos still peels ::: Yes. Treat it as : power is odd, save one , : . Parity of the odd factor is all that matters.
Recall Limiting sanity check: as the exponent grows (say
), why do we prefer Reduction formulas over raw power reduction? Recursion beats expansion ::: Both-even with huge powers means repeated power reduction explodes into many terms. A reduction formula expresses in terms of , giving a clean recursive ladder instead of a combinatorial mess.
Connections
- u-substitution — every "which " trap is really a -availability question.
- Pythagorean identities — the only tools that rebuild even leftovers.
- Power-reduction & double-angle formulas — the both-even escape hatch.
- Reduction formulas — for the high-power limiting cases.
- Integration by parts — needed for mixed cases like .
- Trigonometric substitution — the reverse move; don't confuse it with these direct substitutions.