Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Congratulations on such a high score.
Please can you share any study tips to help?
Hi,
Yes I have a copy of the updated practice and revision kit from BPP.
I got 45% on my first attempt and then 32 on second and third, do you still recommend taking two papers?
Am I the only one who put 60,000 for PPR
Timings messed up, I just about managed to complete this paper without having time to go over my answer, MCQ’S rushed?
Thank you I manged to work it out in the end 😉
Yep I got the same answer
Happy studying;)Hey there I had the same problem, but managed to work it out thanks to Google.
Try this it should work
Log (0.90)÷log (2) = -0.152
Let me know if this works for you, remember you have to close the bracket after 0.90, I think you’ll find that is where you were going wrong.
hi tayiba1 how’re you finding the syllabus overall? an how’re you’re studies going?
That’s great thank you
Think I will recap all chapters before hitting questions and panicking ????
Thank you very much Chris this is very helpful.
I am retaking F5 so rather than go over my notes I attempted at answering questions to see where I’m struggling at. But this is definitely an area I’ll look into further.Passed yaay after several attempts!
Those whom have failed I feel your frustration, I was in the same boat I didn’t know where I’d gone wrong.
Words of advice….I’d suggest going over your writing technique sometimes although you know the answer doesn’t matter, it’s how you write and interpret legal terminology that matters especially the way you make reference to cases. It may seem a little effort but it can make the world of difference like it has with me.
All the best, the key is not to give up you can do it!!
Passed yaay after several attempts!
Those whom have failed I feel your frustration, I was in the same boat I didn’t know where I’d gone wrong.
Words of advice….I’d suggest going over your writing technique sometimes although you know the answer doesn’t matter, it’s how you write and interpret legal terminology that matters especially the way you make reference to cases. It may seem a little effort but it can make the world of difference like it has with me.
All the best, the key is not to give up you can do it!!
<cite>@andreasmacfarlane said:</cite>
Come on everybody. We’re trainee accountants and aren’t expected just to parrot back the text book – this isn’t A-levels. I’d not heard of causation before either, but it seems pretty obvious that it’s got something to do with the cause – anybody who said something sensible should hope to get at least a point.
‘But-for’ was in my notes and I remember it from a lecture I heard so there’s no excuse for point b), and they pretty much gave the answer for c) being that Novus Actus Intervenians means breaking the chain of causation.
I reckon the examiner wants to see if people are able to think independently and come up with something logical – it’s what we’ll be expected to do in the world of work anyway, plus he’s got to throw in some prizewinner questions to reward those people who read around, and not just one text book. There are no textbooks in the industry.Thoughts?
I couldn’t have put it better myself, that’s definitely given me some comfort
Thanks!<cite> @vinai said:</cite>
you are wrong about your “novus actus interveniens” answer. The correct answer is
Extra Damage caused by the
1. Claimant
2. Third Party
3. Natural eventPraying for the best!
Only our prayers can get us through this, let’s pray for us all to pass with flying colours!
<cite>@umairarif92 said:</cite>
can any one tell the answer of question no.3??? (Causation, but for test, Reasons Doctorine of Novus Actus Intervenians not applying)It was res ipa loquiter
I completely left that
Civil courts structure my mind went blank I wrote about county courts, hight Court magistrates and supreme Court.
Q5 dividends what a mess
Question about directors couldn’t write muchScenario questions were probably the only good thing
Overall it was very hard #
Question 5
Daisy I wrote Qualified opinion on an except for basis, it is material but not pervasive, insufficient evidence could be obtained
Oh noo it seems like I’m the only one who wrote thatFor frus I was in two minds about adverse or qualified an just wrote qualified
Q3 was an absolute disaster!!
Epic fail just not my dayThank you very much for explaining this, it has really helped.
Hope your studies are going well 😉Passed AlhumdulillAh second attempt- it’s sucha relief
Now time to decide which paper to do next F5 or F6??
Hi,
Just looking at your comments for the following:
Subsidiary Selling to Parent
DR Revenue
CR COSThis is correct, after which you record the PUP adjustment which is:
DR Cost of sales/retained earnings
CR InventoryYou’re on the right track, these adjustments can get confusing but just try and remember the treatment principle and do lots of practice questions
