Sepember 2010 q 2(ii)_paper 2

[Edwin]

I couldn't get why the question said we should explain why traditional insurance products may not be appropriate, it's not a question about appropriate it s about whether it is possible to get traditional insurance products.

Insurance products can be made to suit any situation and hence be appropriate , but the benefits-costs may not be worth it. Which is what the answer speaks about, not appropriateness as per the question ,someone show me I'm wrong?

 

[Charlie]

I'm a bit confused about your query to be honest. You seem to be questioning the actual question, which - in my experience - isn't a useful way to spend study time!

In any case, I would argue that it's not appropriate if it's far too expensive. (Imagine you lived on a flood plain. One way to avoid the risk of your house flooding would be to move it (brick by brick) to the top of a hill. This would be possible, but far too expensive to consider, so therefore it isn't an appropriate solution.)

 

[td290]

Edwin, I see exactly where you're coming from here! On the face of it, it sounds like they're asking you why the product features would make it unhelpful as a risk mitigation strategy. Rest assured, you are not alone. There are many others who feel your pain when trying to interpret CA1 questions!

To refer to another thread of yours, this is why it often makes sense to think in terms of the bookwork first before trying to apply common sense. Then you will be more likely to consider the situation that the examiner has in mind, namely that you are trying to devise a risk mitigation strategy from scratch. If I were to ask why it is more sensible for the first line of defence to be prevention measures to stop accidents happening rather than insurance, would it then seem more natural to raise the points the examiners raised? Of course, there is insurance for nuclear risks, but it's a last resort for when all other mitigation strategies have failed.

Considering the bookwork will help you get inside the mind of the examiner, who will often be asking quite a basic question, and not jump several steps ahead as I instinctively did, and perhaps you did to, to assume that a risk mitigation strategy was already in place and you were being asked whether insurance was an appropriate addition to it.

 

[Edwin]

Edwin, I see exactly where you're coming from here! On the face of it, it sounds like they're asking you why the product features would make it unhelpful as a risk mitigation strategy. Rest assured, you are not alone. There are many others who feel your pain when trying to interpret CA1 questions!

To refer to another thread of yours, this is why it often makes sense to think in terms of the bookwork first before trying to apply common sense. Then you will be more likely to consider the situation that the examiner has in mind, namely that you are trying to devise a risk mitigation strategy from scratch. If I were to ask why it is more sensible for the first line of defence to be prevention measures to stop accidents happening rather than insurance, would it then seem more natural to raise the points the examiners raised? Of course, there is insurance for nuclear risks, but it's a last resort for when all other mitigation strategies have failed.

Considering the bookwork will help you get inside the mind of the examiner, who will often be asking quite a basic question, and not jump several steps ahead as I instinctively did, and perhaps you did to, to assume that a risk mitigation strategy was already in place and you were being asked whether insurance was an appropriate addition to it.

td290, BINGO! BINGO!

I now agree with you, i see what you meant, just sat the question April 2012 paper1 and i had a similar experience.