Hi, If the question does not necessarily tell us "Assume all calculations performed by.....are correct.", then are we supposed to check them anyway. How do we know whether or not to carry out the calculations, and how much time to spend doing such calcs bc usually we would say in the letter "I have checked the #s and they are correct etc."
Its unlikely that the answer will be wrong. Its more likely that someones inferences are incorrect and you need to point that out. Eg a statement of the nature 'I had expected x>y but.....'. Often you won't have the data to check so you have no option to assume correct. Remember, the subject is about proving communication rather than any mathematical/subject knowledge so try to avoid complex maths. Good luck
I have two rules of thumb. 1. Who did the calcs? Calcs done by non technical people or students I always go over just to be sure. 2. How important are the figures in the query? There are questions where there is a direct question about the figures provided or situations where an argument is centred around a calculated figure. I will check them if I can if that is the case.
An after thought. I find that when I can follow the calculations I get a clear picture of what is happening and I can explain it clearer.
I agree with the prior response in that reproducing the figures may help you to understand what is going on. However, there are associated risks: in getting into the detail you may lose sight of the high-level issues that are the key ones to communicate and/or if you can't reproduce the figures it leads to panic! Personally I prefer to focus on the high-level messages than get lost in the detail. So, like much of the communication process, it is a personal choice as to how best to proceed!
Am I the only one noticing that in the last few sessions of Ca3 one is not being asked to do some calculations at all as the older 201 questions used to? In the recent sessions you really just have to communicate maybe filter relevant info but no need for calculations.
