- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Kim
Im struggling with the technical article part 1 – ethics
Question asks you to comment of ethical threats…. 6 marks
The solution identifies self review threat (1), it then talks about the design of ICS of which there was no mention in the question (1).
Solution then refers to the code around mgt responsibility and lack of safeguards against mgt responsibility (1) but again no mention of this in the question. It then suggests safeguard having just stated there are none (1).
Then the solution refers to the code again and states listed co there are no safeguards (1) and finally it says decline the assignment (1)
I am struggling with the answer the question and don’t speculate part as surely this solution speculates the firm would be asked to design?
I’m also worried that the solution quotes the code and repeats it suggesting multiple marks for the same point around safeguards.
Please help!
The requested service is “to perform a review of the company’s internal control
system”. But as part of an audit, the auditor will in any case consider the effectiveness of ICs and perform tests of controls (i.e. evaluate the system that management has put in place). You have to “speculate” on something – otherwise you don’t have any ethical issue to discuss(!)The question goes on to say “A number of recent incidents have raised concerns amongst the management team that controls have deteriorated and that this has increased the risk of fraud, as well as inefficient commercial practices.” How this is to be fixed is management’s responsibility – whether through design/redesign/implementation – this is what they are asking for help with.
The answer is saying there is no safeguard other than to not assume management responsibilities – and then explains how not assuming management responsibilities could be achieved. Saying “you can assume management responsibility with these safeguards” and “do this so you do not assume management responsibilities” are not the same thing.
Reading between the lines I can see what you’re saying but how often are we advised not to read between the lines.
Why can’t the questions just be specific, if we were dealing with the client we would clarify the exact requirements, in an exam we have to assume, we waste time making assumptions, sometimes scoring no marks, time we don’t have!
I’ve read the reading the mind of the marker article and that only proves the point that you have to answer what’s in front of you and not what might be in front of you.
I’ll be honest, reading the solution I can accept the answer but in the exam with the time we have, I scored 3/6 and I didn’t get any of the marks associated with assuming mgt responsibility.
3/6 is 50% so let’s hope that’s enough..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.