Hi, In this question, we are asked to discuss the expected changes in the level of mortality for three different cases. However, in the examiner report, I can see that the marks distribution is split into part X and part Y marks, where X seems to be dealing with points/reasons of difference in mortality specific to these cases, and Y seems to deal with the principal factors of differences in mortality and morbidity (occupation, education, etc.). I don't understand which part of the question actually prompts us to answer to this question in general terms as well (part Y marks), because all those are not specific to the situations given in the question; or is this decision (whether to go for a general approach too) is only based on the marks available? Also, will we be eligible to be given full credit even if we write only specific points without focusing much on the generic ones - which is generally the comment in a lot of examiner reports, which ask us to focus on specifics, and not answer generally? (even though it might be the case that some of the generic reasons are in fact included in each section). Thanks a lot in advance!
Hi, Chapter 20 of the course notes relate to the material on general factors affecting mortality. The chapter says that mortality is affected by occupation, nutrition, housing, climate/geography, education and genetics. Given the first part is a question examining you from this chapter, the following subpart(s) might have been a little hint that from which part(s) of the course this question is trying to examine you. IMO, I do not think you would have received full credit if you would have just talked about the Y marks because I believe that these would have been capped and that you would need to discuss the specifics for each part of the question rather than securing full credit by using cross-marks in each part. For example, the term assurance question would want you to speak about how mortality is different between the population and those being insured. Besides general factors affecting mortality, you would also talk about them being underwritten at outset and their level of mortality might be higher than the population as they believed their state of health would be different and primarily were covered. The preamble was about "term assurance policyholders versus general population", remember that the preamble also gives you an indication of what you should focus. Hope this helps!
Hi Darshan, Thanks for your answer! Actually I was asking the other way around - answering the whole question based on the specific parts in the question (so essentially, the part X marks). I didn't understand the need for me to write the generic points for mortality (apart from the ones I could cover for each specific section in ii).
Hi - if you look at the number of marks available in part X of the ER then yes: it is possible to gain full marks for this question by sticking with just those specific points. The points in part Y provide the more detailed explanations which 'flesh out' the discussion. So rather than just getting a half mark in (a) under Part X for saying that term assurance p/hs could have a different split by sex than the general population, someone who provided more of a 'discussion' on that point (eg by making the point that mortality is generally higher for males, largely due to genetic differences) could be given more credit. Having the marking schedule set up in this way meant that markers were able to give credit for this additional 'discussion' wherever it took place (ie whether under (a), (b) or (c)) but not to repeatedly give extra half marks if it was done three times. I should add that this is only my interpretation of the examiners' intentions - but it seems to make sense?
