QUANTITATIVE TOOLS IN BUSINESS (PAPER 1.4)

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT GHANA, ICAG

ICAGSpace Home
→
Past Questions & Solutions
→
NOVEMBER 2015 PAST QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
→
View Item

dc.contributor.author	INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT GHANA, ICAG
dc.date.accessioned	2022-07-25T14:38:03Z
dc.date.available	2022-07-25T14:38:03Z
dc.date.issued	2016-11
dc.identifier.uri	http://41.66.247.10:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/594
dc.description	GENERAL PERFORMANCE The general performance of candidates can be described as below average. Majority of the candidates who wrote the paper at centres outside Accra performed extremely poorly with a few scoring above 40%. The few average performers recorded are found in Accra, Kumasi, Wa and Cape Coast. Indeed the best candidate scored 77% and he wrote the paper at the Accra centre. About a dozen candidates scored between 0% and 5%. There was no traceable copying by candidates except that some candidates decided to write only question numbers into their booklets for examiners to mark. Majority of the candidates also wasted their limited time trying to solve all seven instead of the recommended five questions and ended up scoring very low marks , say, below 10 marks in all seven questions . There were a lot of bad numbering of questions and examiners went through some difficulties trying to separate answered questions for marking and scoring. Per the scripts submitted for marking, one will conclude that candidates’ preparation for the paper was very poor and this has reflected in the general performance. In fact, few candidates decided to present blank pages in their booklets for marking in this diet.	en_US
dc.description.abstract	EXAMINER’S GENERAL COMMENTS The Quantitative Tools in Business, Paper 1.4, written in November was generally well written and the questions adequately cover the Level One Syllabus and the ICAG Manual. The standard of the Paper was a little weaker, compared to the May 2016 Paper, but it was similar in format and style to the previously administered Papers. The marking scheme was well-drawn; every sub-question had marks duly allocated and the marks were adequate for each question ( i.e. it followed the weighting in the revised syllabus). Finally, it was observed that the questions were evenly spread over the topics in the syllabus. The only limitations of the paper are the few misprints found in the sub-questions. However, 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 2016 PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATIONS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS IN BUSINESS (PAPER 1.4) CHIEF EXAMINER’S REPORT, QUESTIONS & 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