Whilst attempting question 4 of the specimen paper (which is taken from SA6 Sept 2015 Q1), I found the split between the various parts quite arbitrary. Was wondering if anyone else felt similarly, or could explain why my understanding of the question wording is faltering. I've tried to explain my issues below: Q4.i.a: Asks for a definition of infrastructure projects (worth 5 marks). I would argue that its very difficult to find 5 marks worth of definition of infrastructure without talking about investment characteristics. Indeed the solution mentions the long-term nature of infrastructure projects, which I think is an investment characteristic. Q4.i.b: Asks for investment characteristics of infrastructure projects (worth 11 marks). No issues here. Q4.i.c: Asks for pros and cons if investing in infrastructure (worth 4 marks). I had pretty much covered the pros and cons of infrastructure investment in my answers to part (a) and (b) so wasn't sure how to answer this without repeating myself. So I tried to make it specific to sovereign wealth funds by saying that infrastructure improvements may be in line with the objectives of the fund (economic stability / future generation / etc). However, the solution simply repeats points made in part (b) but splits them out as 'attractive' vs 'unattractive'. Q4.ii.a: Asks for asset classes we can use to invest in infrastructure (worth 5 marks). As a standalone question, I don't think there's an issue. But considering the very next question asks for methods of investment (which implicitly will cover the asset classes) and challenges (which will cover the details of investing via each asset class), it made it very difficult for me to split out what information I should provide in part (a) vs part (b). Q4.ii.b: Asks for different methods of investing in infrastructure as well as the associated challenges of each (worth 11 marks). No issues here. Any thoughts, feedback, or advice appreciated.