I think it was full of horrible questions.... yes number 19 was horrible. There was only a certain amount you could say to answer the question but awarded so many marks for it. Another really stupid question that wasn't really worth the marks was "Explain why a balance sheet always balances" What are you supposed to say for 5 marks???
I thought the paper was pretty easy but i'm not used to writing so much stuff. I had to stretch out the old hand once or twice. You would think it would be use to it after all the wrist action it gets.... oh well....
It's not about how much you write... It's "is what you write all correct??" I too wrote a lot and had to stretch my more than once or twice, but is what I wrote correct or is it just a load of hogwash?? I fear it may be the latter. Results time will tell.
I too thought this was a difficult question in which to score all five marks. The obvious answer was "...because of the balance sheet equation" and then state it. Somehow I don't think that's quite worthy of the full 5. On the whole I thought it was a reasonably fair exam. Nothing like that hideous last question from April's paper where you had to draft the income statements, balance sheets *and* calculate the ratios, only to find that the marks were actually awarded for making the comments.
Agree with the sentiment that it was hard to think up answers to fulfil the marks. Also thought some of the multi choices were rather tricky - sometimes I'm not sure whether the examiner has worded a question so it's particularly to trick those who don't read it properly, or is just being vague. It's kind of how I generally felt about this paper though - it's not particularly clear what the examiners were asking for, and I've felt at times it is needed to second-guess the examiner.. Indeed results time will tell..
balance sheet I think the balance sheet question also wanted an explanation of the dual aspect concept - double entry bookkeeping and all that. Hope you all passed!
