[tutoroftheyear2013]

not strange at all for an audit paper – it is an example of A from AEIOU, an analytical procedure, where auditor takes last year’s figure, adjusts it for known information, to estimate what this year’s figure SHOULD be, and then compares with client figure to see if it is same ballpark.

Can be done for payroll, depreciation etc and MCQ like this have appeared in the past, as they demonstrate understanding of an important analytical audit procedure.

Great example of how good exam technique works – this type of MCQ takes an age to do, so is best tried once, then guessed if your figure does not match one of the answers, or left till end of exam to have another stab.

[tutoroftheyear2013]

No problem at all if you use bullet points, so long as there is still enough detail in what you write that marker understands it.

– look at invoice (will score no marks)

– inspect invoice to verify cost figure mtaches what is recorded in client’s ledger to verify accuracy (will score 1 mark)

Whether or not you use a bullet is irrelevant. It is just about the words.

[tutoroftheyear2013]

Hi all. I am contacting ACCA regarding these AAA paper issues so can as many as possible please confirm that the below is what happened, as there seems to be some confusion:

– in a question, an entity called Purple was later referred to with a different name Magenta?
– a requirement of Q1 referred to using exhibits 2,3,4 but in fact there was an exhibit 5 which clearly needed to be used as well
– or alternatively, the question referred to an Exhibit 5 that did not exist
– Q1 said do materiality based on PBT but no PBT figures were given

Anything else?

[Author]

Posts