I am debating whether is is appropriate to include numerical examples in letters. Is that too technical for CA3? If no, what examples are appropriate?
It depends. Have you not come across good examples of communication that involve numerical examples? As with everything else you include: it should aid understanding, not distract Reader should be able to follow the calculation so it should be fairly simple. Use "round" numbers, so user doesn't need a calculator to follow math.
Agree with the above. Would also go as far as to suggest that you should only use numbers if the question is asking for them.
Careful! The question won't tell you exactly what to include in your answer. The examiners are looking for you to decide what needs including ("the What") in order to fully address the recipients needs ("the Why"). If you have explained a (new/unfamiliar) concept to the recipient then you may decide that it will help them to follow it up with a (tangible/real-life) example of that concept. This might be a numerical example.
Perhaps I should rephrase; I believe CA3 has shifted emphasis slightly. Over my 3 attempts (finally passed on the 3rd!), I felt they were introducing more data in the question. It can be tempting to include this in your answer (we are actuaries!). However I believe you need to be ruthless in synthesising or preferably eliminating the data. If in doubt, leave it out!
So can we say, better not to include any numbers. You can still explain in words in most cases. The numbers may look too techy.
I've submitted my first assignment to Acted with no figures in the letter or slides with only graphs in the slides. Yet when I've looked at the Acted solutions there's figures all over the slides. From reading Acted's notes it seemed that numbers were to be avoided as people don't like them unless they're actuaries.
Section 8 in the ActEd Course Notes covers the "The use of numerical examples". I can't see where the notes say that numbers are to be avoided - please can you clarify your source. The key is to answer "the why" and if that means you need to use numbers then that is fine. However, you should then aim to use the fewest numbers (so as to keep the communication as simple as possible) whilst still achieving your objective ("the why").
Page 41 has so may warnings that using numerical examples seem very risky. We're only trying to derisk our CA3 approach so that examiners have less room to mark us down.
Yes indeed! I certainly support you de-risking. However, I don't think the minimum risk position is to avoid including numbers in all answers to CA3 questions. This is because, depending on the circumstances ('the who' and 'the why'), the examiners may penalise unnecessary use of numbers (due to being distracting or confusing), or fail to give credit where numbers are necssary to meet the objectives in communicating ('the why'). Communication requires application of complex judgments that can't be distilled into a series of simple rules. This is why, currently, computers can't answer CA3 exam questions! You need to use your judgment... the key question to ask is... do you think, under the particular circumstances of the question, that is necessary/helpful to include numbers in the response or not.
