QUANTITATIVE TOOLS IN BUSINESS (PAPER 1.4)

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT GHANA, ICAG

dc.contributor.author	INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT GHANA, ICAG
dc.date.accessioned	2022-07-25T10:40:32Z
dc.date.available	2022-07-25T10:40:32Z
dc.date.issued	2017-05
dc.identifier.uri	http://41.66.247.10:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/565
dc.description	PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES The general performance of candidates can be described as above average. Majority of the candidates who wrote the paper at all centres across the country performed averagely well with many scoring above 40%. Many of these average performers recorded are found in Accra, Kumasi, Takoradi and Cape Coast. The Wa centre recorded four passes, all of an average mark of 50%. The best three candidates who were from the Accra centre scored 82% 80% and 79% respectively. Few candidates scored below 10%. There was no traceable copying by candidates except that some candidates did not number their answers very well, which gave some examiners a tough time trying to separate answered questions for marking and scoring. Few candidates also wasted their limited time trying to solve only three questions for which they ended up scoring high marks on two question and very low marks on one . Most of such candidates did not score the pass mark of 50%. Per the scripts submitted for marking this year’s November Examination diet, one will conclude that candidates’ preparation for the paper was inadequate and this has reflected in the general performance. In fact, few candidates scored 20/20 on Questions One, Three and Four in this diet’s Quantitative Tools in Business Paper.	en_US
dc.description.abstract	STANDARD OF THE PAPER The standard of the Paper is a little higher than the May 2017 diet but lower than the previous Papers ( November 2016, May 2016, November 2015, May 2015) . It is however, similar in format and style to the aforementioned Papers. There were few identifiable ambiguities or typing errors in the paper. The questions were evenly spread over the topics in the syllabus. The marking scheme was straight forward and candidates were rewarded for any meaningful effort	en_US
dc.description.sponsorship	ICAG	en_US
dc.language.iso	en	en_US
dc.publisher	ICAG LIBRARY	en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries	QTB;PAPER 1.4
dc.subject	NOVEMBER 2017 PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATIONS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS IN BUSINESS (PAPER 1.4) CHIEF EXAMINER’S REPORT, QUESTIONS AND MARKING SCHEME ICAG LIBRARY NYARKO TWUM OSBORN ERNEST YAW DENKYIRA	en_US
dc.title	QUANTITATIVE TOOLS IN BUSINESS (PAPER 1.4)	en_US
dc.title.alternative	QTB PAPER 1.4	en_US
dc.type	Learning Object	en_US