2004年12月考试Paper1.2考官谈备考ACCA_CAT

文章作者 100test 发表时间 2009:01:25 07:27:58
来源 100Test.Com百考试题网

　　Relevant to: Paper 1.2Professional scheme
　　The structure of this paper was identical to
　　recent previous sittings with 25 compulsory
　　 multiple choice questions in Section A and five
　　 compulsory 10 mark questions in Section B.
　　Section A
　　The questions in this section came from right
　　across the syllabus and the topics tested complemented the
　　topics set in Section B. Each question carried two marks.
　　There was the usual mixture of computational and descriptive questions.
　　Questions on the following topics were least well answered: cost behaviour,
　　break even charts, relevant costs for decision making,
　　costvolumeprofit analysis and process costing
　　involving work in process and equivalent units.
　　Section B
　　Question 1
　　This question tested various aspects of process
　　costing including normal and abnormal losses and abnormal gains.
　　The process also involved the creation of two joint products.
　　Part (a) required candidates to produce one process account
　　which included the volumes and valuations of the joint products
　　separately. Errors made by weaker candidates were:
　　To produce more than one process account.
　　To present an answer in the wrong format – an account was required.
　　To show the combined output and value of the joint products.
　　To incorrectly calculate the abnormal loss in the process.
　　To show the normal loss as having no realisable value.
　　Part (b) required candidates to explain how an abnormal gain
　　arises and how it should be treated in a process account.
　　This part was answered well by many candidates.
　　Question 2
　　This question involved cost-volume-profit analysis for a
　　single product situation. In part (a)
　　candidates were required to calculate the contribution
　　per unit and the total profit for the current year from the
　　information given. The key to doing this was to be able to
　　apply the given contribution to sales ratio correctly to the
　　given variable cost per unit. The calculations involved were
　　incorrectly done by many candidates. Part (b) required
　　candidates to calculate how many units of the product
　　should be produced and sold in the next year to achieve
　　a target profit given that the selling price and costs were
　　increasing by different percentages. A very common error
　　was to use the fixed cost per unit given and adjust this for
　　the percentage increase in cost rather than
　　applying it to the total fixed cost.
　　Previous examiner’s comments have emphasised
　　the importance of candidates
　　showing clear workings in their answers. This question was a
　　classic example of one where the common error
　　in part (a) - already referred to - did not mean that
　　marks were automatically lost in part (b)
　　even though it involved using the figures already calculated
　　in part (a). As long as the workings were clearly shown in part (b),
　　a candidate could have scored full marks in part (b) using the

　　wrong figures brought forward from part (a).
　　The written part of this question (c) required candidates
　　 to explain and give an example of a semi-variable cost
　　and to explain how such a cost is dealt with
　　in costvolumeprofit analysis. Part (c) was the
　　best answered part of this question.
　　Question 3
　　This question required the calculation of two sales
　　variances for a company using absorption costing
　　and an explanation of who in the organisation
　　would need such variance information. The last
　　 part of the question tested candidates understanding
　　of the difference between absorption costing and
　　marginal costing. Answers to the calculation of the
　　two straightforward sales variances were generally
　　very disappointing. Common errors were:
　　· To use the production figures given rather than
　　the sales figures in calculating the sales volume variance.
　　· To calculate a sales volume turnover variance
　　rather than the sales volume profit variance as clearly
　　stated in the requirements to the question.
　　· To base the sales price variance on budgeted sales
　　 (or even production) rather than on actual sales units.
　　· To fail to indicate clearly whether the variances
　　calculated were adverse or favourable.
　　In part (b) candidates often wrote at length about
　　the possible causes of the variances calculated in part (a)
　　which was not required and gained no credit. Part (b)
　　was about identifying who in the organisation should
　　have the sales variances reported to them and why.
　　A surprisingly large number of candidates did not
　　specifically mention the sales or marketing managers at all in their answers.
　　Part (c) required candidates to calculate the budgeted
　　profit under absorption costing and the equivalent figure
　　if marginal costing had been in use. Many candidates
　　produced unnecessarily elaborate answers. For example,
　　 full trading statements were not necessary to arrive at the
　　profits. A very common error was to produce actual
　　profits the requirement to the question had the requirement for
　　BUDGETED profit in capitals.
　　Question 4
　　Most candidates found this question on the economic
　　order quantity (EOQ) concept the easiest on the paper.
　　In part (a) the EOQ for two different years needed to be calculated.
　　Errors that arose involved misreading the question (the cost of
　　placing an order rose by £.11 and not to £.11) and incorrect
　　substitutions into the formula that was given on the
　　examination paper. Part (b) caused a lot more
　　problems to candidates it involved the calculation
　　of the extra cost of ordering
　　and holding stock between one year and the next.
　　A significant number of candidates had little idea
　　about how to calculate the annual costs involved
　　even though they had correctly calculated the EOQ
　　in part (a). The short descriptive part (c) was well answered by
　　most candidates. In line with the marks, quite brief answers
　　were expected as candidates only needed to “identify”
　　 major holding and ordering costs. Some candidates wasted
　　 time by writing at length about these costs.
　　Question 5
　　The last question on the paper involved scarce resources
　　for two periods. In the first period there was a single scarce
　　resource and in the second two scarce resources. Therefore a linear
　　programming approach was only required in part (b) for the second period.
　　Common errors made by candidates were:
　　To try and use linear programming in part (a) instead of calculating
　　the contribution per unit of limiting factor for each product.
　　To ignore the requirement in both parts (a) and (b) to calculate
　　the resultant total contribution for the optimal production plans.
　　To base the optimal plan in part (a) on the product with the
　　highest contribution per unit.
　　To ignore the information given in the question that the optimal
　　plan in the second period involved a combination of both products.
　　To muddle up values and units in the same constraint in part (b).
　　It was surprising to find a significant number of candidates
　　performing better in part (b) than in part (a) of this question.