*CAUTION - THIS POST RELATES TO THE CIMA 2010 SYLLABUS, SO IS NO LONGER VALID***Anonymous wrote:**

*I am doing P3, what if I can not answer say part a - a numerical part of a question - how do I attempt to answer part b the rest of the question if I don't have the numerical part in a to refer to - can I use theory for recommendations ?*Easy one! If you can't do the calculation at all, or get stuck part way through, just 'assume' an answer. Write at the end of the calculation (or instead of it) "Answer = ......". Then, answer part b (the discussion) as if the answer to part a (the calculation) had been what you assumed. The rule is that you must still be able to earn full marks for the discussion.

Can you use theory? Yes, of course - base your arguments on the theory, as it applies to an answer such as the one you assumed.

You can't be penalised twice for one mistake.

Anonymous wrote

ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned we can assume an answer in part "a" and discuss it in part "b" and would be able to earn marks on discussion.

Let’s take a scenario: F3 (Financial Strategy)

Part A requirements are to calculate working capital levels.

Part B: to suggest the company in examination which working capital strategy would be suitable for them, Aggressive or Conservative?

If I am unable to calculate part A or make a wrong assumption.

What if my assumption is wrong? Would I still be awarded marks?

That is correct.

ReplyDeleteLet's say the 'correct' answer to part (a) is 100. You either make a mistake in calculation, and get an answer of 50, or you can't do the calculation, and assume 50 as the answer.

You've already lost some(or all) of the marks in part (a), so you can't lose them again.

You answer part (b) well, based on your answer for part (a) - 50. You can still get full marks for part (b), if your answer is good enough. The marker has to work out what the answer to part (b) would be, if the answer to part (a) really was 50, and mark your answer to part (b) accordingly.