- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello,
If the question asks for 5 audit risk (or 5 control deficiency), can I write 7-8 points instead of just 5, so that if I get a few wrong (let’s say 2-3), it is possible that I would get the marked full for the remaining 5 correct ones?There is no negative marking in ACCA exams – BUT see this post also https://opentuition.com/topic/marks-guidance
Thank you tutor.
So in conclusion, if the question asks for 5 risks,
If I write 5 fully correct risks – I get 5 marks worth 1 marks each.
If I write 10 risks, all of which are partially developed & correct – I still get 5 marks worth 1/2 marks each.
If I write 8 risks, 3 of which are wrong and 5 are fully correct – I get 5 marks again.Is this understanding correct?
If you read the examiner’s report you will see that if she asks for a number – that is what she wants and markers will be annoyed if instructions are not adhered to.
What you suggest might be correct if you were talking about substantive procedures – but I don’t think the examiner usually specifies a number in this case.
BUT in a risk/response question, you are looking for risk identified (1/2) + explained (1/2) + response (1) = 2 marks. So you can have lots of initial ideas for risks but you should go for developing into full answer points only those for which you can think of suitable responses.
Suppose a question asks for 7 risks/responses for 14 marks. That really breaks down to the examiner asking for identification (max 3 1/2), explanation (max 3 1/2) and responses (max 7). There may be a little leeway but you would not get 7 marks for identifying 14 risks (!)
Also when it comes to risks or indeed control deficiencies there may be only a few more valid ones than the examiner asks for – not twice as many.Fewer full points are better than more half-hearted ones.
- The topic ‘Additional points than asked’ is closed to new replies.