Is that possible? How strictly do examiner's stick to 'their' expected solution. For example 'discuss the implications of the threat of a takeover for the behaviour of a quoted company's directors'. So I talked about maximising shareholder wealth and how this is captured in the share price. If shares look low the company may be target of a hostile takeover, directions loose their job, bad for the directors personally etc. To me that's a good answer. In the mark scheme and Aset however, it approaches it from 'what actions directors may take in the event of a takeover threat'. I don't think that's what the question asks. The question is about how does possibility of a takeover impact directors behaviour, ultimately it serves to align director and shareholder interests.
To be honest I would say you were off the mark with your reply, notwithstanding that your point is sensible. The wording to me sounds like there is an immediate and tangible takeover prospect, which is not the same as the theoretical prospect of a takeover (to most people, anyway!)
Fair enough. I don't think there should be any issues in regards to the meaning of the question though; it should be written in a way that is completely unambiguous. If someone interprets the question differently, and it's a reasonable interpretation which I'd argue is the case here, would we be penalised for that? Maybe only an examiner can answer that ...
In practice it depends how many people misinterpret it and an element of judgement as to how easy it was to read the misinterpreted version. My sense is that you wouldn't have gotten away with this particular question, but only an examiner can give a definitive answer.
Undoubtedly some injustices do happen although I think the example you've given may better serve as an example of why so many people think they're the serial victim of such injustices. Look at the words highlighted in bold above. Look at the question and then look at your description of ASET's interpretation, then look at your description of your interpretation. I think you'll see that it's the last of these that's out of line.
Yes mine and ASET's interpretation are different. Where I was coming from was that there is always a threat of takeover for any quoted company which has implications for the director's behaviour. The threat doesn't have to have materialised for it to have an effect. Sorry but still feel my point stands
The thing to remember is that examiners choose their words carefully. You have assumed that "possibility" and "threat" are interchangeable. While a close dictionary reading would probably agree with you, you should probably bear in mind that if an examiner means "possible", he or she will write "possible", not haul out a thesaurus.
