- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Ma’am could you confirm if we can write only evidences and not go on describing matters to get full marks in part b)’s each subpart? I understand that most of the evidence gets derived from the matters and accounting treatments that we explain, but I feel there are times when am not sure about the treatment or application of a particular standard, so I was wondering if I could get all marks from evidence? and not waste my time thinking about matters which am unsure of
Like is that allowed? or there is some sort of hidden cap? from the marking scheme its not clear whether the examiner would be fine with the approach hence asking…
There could be a cap that isn’t published as the marking schemes that the markers use are more detailed than those published. So the examiner could instruct markers to cap matters and evidence each at 6, say, for an overall cap of 8 marks.
Also, if you haven’t properly identified the matters it is more likely that you will write non-relevant evidence that will not earn marks. If for example, an issue is impairment, there will be no marks for generic evidence regarding depreciation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.