>>11441572I agree with this. Mostly, it is actually a the same concept as already thought a few times, but maybe from another perspective, or it is a concept that is easily deduced from another two already thought several times.
However, for the sake of the benefit of doubt and fairness, there are cases (less than 5% in my experience), where a question is not covered by the book recommended by the professor or syllabus, and was not mentioned in the class or homework. Also, there are cases where it is an implicit concept that you can indeed figure out from the previous ones, but because of the time constraint of the test, you are not able to. One should not have to reinvent the wheel, especially if takes several hours, but the exams lasts only so long.
Again, these cases are very rare, hence why I think that OP should post the book and question, so we can analyze it.
What is faaaar worse, in my opinion, is when
>>11441602 happens.
Teachers should be people you can trust, at least with these kinds of things, and depending on your program, it could be choke full of unnecessary courses that you have to take nevertheless, so a professor stating that you should not waste your time with a given section, since it won´t be on the exam, is sometimes a gift send straight from heaven, but lying about is worse than being satan himself and should have consequences for the professor.
