April 2020 Paper 1

[rlsrachaellouisesmith]

Good morning,

In the data adjustments there was an N in the age bands, which should have been an S or a J. In the model solution it says this is changed to an S, presumably this is because it is within the "S's" on the list. However, I probably over thought it and said I would change it to a J as J is near the N on the keyboard so I assumed a mistype. However, this changes some of my solutions, will I have been marked down for this or will it have been ok because I justified it?

Thank you,

Rachael

 

[rlsrachaellouisesmith]

Also, in the audit trail assumptions it is stated that the scores per competitor between cards are independent and identically distributed. Why is this assumption necessary?

Thank you

 

[Sarah Byrne]

That data change would be fine as long as you justify it (as you say ).

That assumption is given as we using each score individually, it is essentially saying there is no relationship between the scores that are being modelled.

 

[rlsrachaellouisesmith]

Thank you

 

[rlsrachaellouisesmith]

Good morning,

I am just reviewing this paper and have a few questions.

1) In the model solution of the audit trail the data validation of scores includes a description of the validation of the age band being either S or J, but does not include an explanation of how this is completed. I thought it was important to include both the what and the how description, can you explain why this has not been included?

2) there is also very minimal description of the calculations made in the 25 metre scores - individual statistics tab, with no references to column position. I thought that a lot more detail was required than has been given in the model solution, am I wrong? For example the calculations of the individual scores in columns W to Y are covered in 1 sentence with no reference to how the separate senior and junior calculations have been completed - would we be expected to describe the use of logical functions?

3) In the worksheet there is no parameters tab and instead the parameters for tolerance levels, expected values and parameters a and b are included on the calculation tabs. Would better practice be to put these on a parameters tab or is this not necessary?

4) In the budget run equality run trial and error has been used, is it acceptable to use trial and error even if goal seek would be more rigorous, if the calculation is simple enough? I suppose it is as we do not need to over-complicate calculations.

5) In the charts section of the audit trail there is a reasonableness check which says senior average is lower than junior average for all, are we expecting this because the 25m average for seniors is lower than juniors and therefore the exponential mean is smaller for the seniors than the juniors and so we would expect a lower score?

Thank you,

Rachael