I really think that some of the BS and IS questions for this module are highly ambiguous or plain wrong. Making something difficult by ambiguity is just silly. Eg note (e) in this question.. The answer implies that the provision is for trade receivables outstanding at the end of 2007. The wording, to me, implies it is for 2006. This is really frustrating!!! note (d) implies that this has already been recognised in the prior balance sheet, but the answer assumes it hasn't.
I also found that a lot of the material in the ActEd notes on construction of balance sheets etc. was highly ambiguous, sometimes self-contradictory and sometimes different to the most recent past paper. However, a lot of that may be because the subject material is inherently ambiguous; I've prepared for the exam by asking a lot of questions of some friends of mine who are auditors and that if there does turn out to be something ambiguous on the paper you shouldn't sweat too much - just note down your interpretation and all that's going to happen is you'll lose a mark or two.
