Can you be penalised for putting too much under a constraint, providing it could be valid?
Example: in some of the Schweser papers, under Unique Circumstances the only comment/answer is “provide funding for daughters medical bills throughout her life, and she may outlive the parents”. Within my answer I had listed several UC’s such as “owns property outright” (which I’m sure I read should be considered), “medical bills covered for life” etc… To me these are valid answers?!
I’m planning to just include anything reasonable, but will the marker only look at the first one?
This is an interesting question @MattJuniper – I discussed with @zee. Although the official CFA stance is that you cannot be penalised for a right answer, I recall having read somewhere that if, for example in the exam they asked for 2 points/answer, and you gave 5, they will only look at the first 2.
So do include anything reasonable if you are confident that they are not wrong. But if they explicitly asked for X constraints, only write X amount of that since any extra won’t be considered anyway. This makes sense to me to avoid candidates writing a whole essay, and helps you focus your answer to the more ‘obvious’ ones.
@MattJuniper: I had asked the same question to an ex-paper checker for CFAI. He tld me that as far as it is not mentioned anywhere else in the IPS and its valid…points won’t be deducted.
As we all know that a question is corrected by just limited people throughout the batch of examiners they have…eventually they will just focus on certain key words..so if u have mentioned them u would get the score..and my personal view: if writing 4 extra words within the time and space constraint gives me the peace of mind that I have covered all the possible aspects I would write them anyway as I wouldn’t know those keywords!!
Hope this helps!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.