I'm confused with the wording of some questions in the exam papers, and the expectations by the examiners of students' responses. For example, September 2006 paper has two questions in particular: 14) Financial futures take many different forms. Explain the reasons for the existence of such financial instruments. 17) Company financial statements contain many figures that are really matters of opinion rather than fact. The figures for tangible fixed assets are subject to a variety of estimates and assumptions. Explain the role of estimates and assumptions in arriving at the figures for tangible fixed assets in company balance sheets. The examiners claim that responses to question 14 did not require specific mention of the actual futures (bond futures, etc). However the model answer for question 16 discusses specific estimates and assumptions (depreciation, etc). Are we expected to spot apparent nuances in the wording of questions like these? I'd feel hard done by if I lost marks for referring specifically to bond futures, or if I approached question 17 from a general standpoint of why estimates and assumptions are used, without delving into an specific examples. Surely the examiners can't have their cake and eat it too? It seems a bit mean!
How? Explain the reason for the existence of different forms of financial futures. cf: Explain the role of estimates and assumptions. Neither requests the student mention anything specific.. Please explain the difference in context as I'm struggling to see it.
I too seem to agree with Maz. Also sometimes the same question has been asked but then the examiners have written down different answers. I assume if I were to write all the points down from one mark scheme, I should get all the marks the next time round that question repeats, even if it that point does not exist in that mark scheme?
After reading the question, have a look at the number of marks which are allocated to it. This will give you a feel for how much they are expecting you to write.
All of these questions are worth 5 marks so that doesn't help. Another example is qu 14 of April 2009: Explain why the directors of a company might wish to have a steady and consistent dividend policy. The model answer discusses the theory by MM that dividend decision is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the question. The directors would want a consistent dividend policy because the theory is that dividend policy is irrelevant? I would understand if it said "discuss", but it says "explain". I'm starting to get anxious that I'll lose a good number of marks because of these issues.
reading questions Hi, If its any help, you do get better at reading these nuances as you attempt more questions. (It doesnt get better as you get to later exams either)
Colin, Thanks for the reply - you're right I've noticed that I'm generally able to get most of the points for the 5 mark questions the more that I go through these sort of questions. I still drop marks occasionally, but considering it's the odd question that it happens I think I should be ok.
