- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Hi,
I gave the AA March attempt. I am not sure about my exam or how it went. I was discussing the exam with one of my colleagues, and I told him I had not calculated the materiality but instead wrote a general answer that if it is material but not pervasive, then the auditor should give a qualified except for opinion, and if it is not material, then an unmodified opinion should be given. And if pervasive and material… and so on.
My question is, will I be getting any marks for this or should I consider it a zero?
I know there is no point in going back, but it is just to ease my anxiety.There is no negative marking, so if you managed to to state anything that was not only factually correct but relevant to the scenario/Q set, it will be credited. So for example, if the correct answer should have been material misstatement -> modified qualified, you should be credited for that.
However, digression into pervasive misstatement -> modified adverse would earn no credit since this would amount to “knowledge dumping”/speculation.
Hi Kim,
Sorry didn’t see your message there. Thank you for your response. I have another question:
If a scenario is given and we need to identify threats to independence of Audit in that scenario and to describe how it is threat and we need to state the recommendation to minimize each identified threat. I identified all the scenario but due to time constraint instead of describing how it is threat, I just stated that which threat is it for example advocacy, self interest etc. and Instead of giving long recommendation I gave few words in recommendation, for example if the scenario says that the wife of auditor is CEO of the company in audit then I wrote the recommendation, another auditor should be appointed. Each point was of 2 credits and we needed to identify 3 threats. How much can I expect?
Good morning! If you have any further queries for me, can I ask that you please use the tutor forum https://opentuition.com/forum/ask-acca-tutor-forums/ask-the-tutor-acca-audit-and-assurance-aa-exams
Your question raises a number of points – one is that with sufficient revision question, candidates really shouldn’t be running short of time on the AA exam. Also, that until you get your result you shouldn’t dwell unduly on what you should have done. That said, I will write more for the benefit of other students still preparing for this exam.
Another point is regarding “verb guidance” in ACCA exams – “describe”, “explain”, etc have different meanings. Therefore, the marks awarded to too brief answers that do not describe (e.g. answering the question “how”) or explain (e.g. answering the question “why”), must be restricted.
Say a Q asks to explain an audit opinion in a given scenario – a candidate writes “Qualified – “except for” – if that is correct, it will get 1/2 mark, say, but nothing more. A marker cannot presume that the candidate understands why that audit opinion is correct in the circumstances.
In the example you wrote “another auditor should be appointed” might get 1/2 or 1 mark if it is sufficiently clear that the auditor in this context is the audit engagement partner rather than a different audit firm.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.