ACCA12月考试2公司报告最新考官总结 EXAM TECHNIQUE.docVIP

RELEVANT TO ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER P2 　　EXAM TECHNIQUE FOR PAPER P2 　　The article focuses on issues of poor exam technique that show themselves repeatedly in the answers students submit for Paper P2 each sitting. These issues are not news. The examiner makes reference to these problems in his exam comments every sitting，but somehow they rear their head at the next sitting regardless. 　　The problems relate to the over enthusiasm of students and so I have written this article in an attempt to persuade students to reign this in，and utilise a little control when answering Paper P2 questions. 　　The broad problem that I will discuss is the insistence of some students in writing rambling irrelevant nonsense in the context of their answer to the narrative questions in Section B. This seems to be a particular problem with the industry or mix question. So I have used Part （c）of Question 2 from June 2010 to illustrate the problem. The question referred to an entity called Cate which operates in the software industry. 　　I have provided you with two answers. Both answers are made up by me. But both closely correlate to real answers given by students；one answer showing good exam technique and one answer with poor exam technique. 　　Here is the question： 　　At 1 April 2009 Cate had a direct holding of shares giving 70% of the voting rights in Date. In May 2010，Date issued new shares，which were wholly subscribed for by a new investor. After the increase in capital，Cate retained an interest of 35% of the voting rights in its former subsidiary Date. At the same time，the shareholders of Date signed an agreement providing new governance rules for Date. Based on this new agreement，Cate was no longer to be represented on Date’s board or participate in its management. As a consequence Cate considered that its decision not to subscribe to the issue of new shares was equivalent to a decision to disinvest in Date. Cate argued that the decision not to invest clearly showed its new intention n