Very frustrated with exam question wording

I just attempted Subject 303, Sept 2003, Q5 which gives a scenario about a company wanting to build a model to test different reinsurance programmes. It asks "Describe how you would construct your model" [10 marks].

So I wrote a load of stuff about modelling cashflows, allowing for premium income, delay to recoveries, expenses etc. I thought it was quite good but when I looked at the answer it was just the list of steps involved in using a stochastic model. I was annoyed because I know that list and had they asked for the steps involved I would've scored almost full marks, but the answer as i wrote it might have scored 1 or 2.

Compare this to Subject 303, April 2004, Q8 part (ii): "Describe the steps involved in using a stochastic model". That had the same answer yet that time it was clear they wanted you to list the steps involved.

Very frustrating, sometimes feels like we're supposed to just guess what the examiner has in mind when they write the question. How are we supposed to know what sort of answer to give when the questions are so inconsistent?

 

hI ggrzz, examiners are trying to test if you read the work with this type of questions. Their list of the steps of a stochastic model is just a backbone, they awarded marks for those who applied those steps...for example the step that says collect, group and modify data. You just have to say collect internal data and maybe try to source some data from the reinsurer....

...so take your solution and merge it with that list and you score 10.

Your "modelling cashflows, allowing for premium income, delay to recoveries, expenses" can come in with the one that says ensure the model is able to project all cashflows and other outputs as well as interactions between them

But I'm sure you will still gain some marks without having merged this specific solution, but im just giving you a blueprint of the solution should look like

 

Hi Edwin - thanks for your response.

My main issue was that I wouldn't have even thought to use that list of steps in my answer as the question usually uses the words "steps" specifically when they want you to use it.

I would have extended the points in the list of steps to make it applicable to the question had I know that's what they wanted.

 

Based on experience with CA1, this particular part of the syllabus is often vague when referenced in the exam. The questions include phrases such as:

"features of a model"
"features of a good model"
"how to construct a model"
"components included in a model"

and many variations of the above (plus others).

What I realised is this is one part of the CA1 course (and now ST7 course) such that any question that comes up about a model needs to be read with real scrutiny, and it's important to decipher which part of the syllabus they expect you to use. A good portion of luck is also required!

It's very unsatisfactory, but if you were a borderline candidate I don't think your interpretation of this question would turn you from a pass to a fail. Just my thoughts.