[fiona87]

Can someone explain to me like I am five years old why incorrect rejection would hurt efficiency? I don’t get why incorrectly rejecting something would be effective but not efficient as the NINJA notes say. Is someone able to talk me through it? I’m probably overthinking this….

FAR - 79 (11/27/13)
AUD - 76 (2/1/14)
REG - 77 (5/30/14)
BEC - 88 (7/18/14)

MN Ethics - 100% (3/9/14)

AND DONE! 8/1/14

[Anonymous]

It's confusing, don't feel bad. 🙂

Let's say I'm making an Excel formula to automatically add up the numbers in 2 columns, each 2000 records long. The data is in Column A and B, so my formula would be “=A1+B1” and then copy it down to all the rows. But, in order to make sure it's working right, I plan to randomly pick a couple rows and add up the numbers in the two columns to see if they match the amount in my sum column. Let's say the first random one I add up manually is 250+350. The sum column says 600. My brain is overworked from exam study, so I add wrong, and get 500. Seeing that the sum column and my manual addition don't match, I get worried, and incorrectly reject the sum column's accuracy, thinking that my formula isn't working right. Because of this, I decide that I need to double-check at least 50% of the figures…so instead of just adding up a couple sets of numbers, I add up 1000 sets of numbers. At the end of this checking, the formula has been right 999 of 1000 times, and I realize that I added wrong on the one exception.

At the end of checking the 1000 rows, my work is very effective – I can say with great certainty that the addition has been done correctly – but very inefficient, because I had to sit there and add up 1000 sets of numbers by hand instead of being able to rely on my tools, all because I incorrectly rejected the 250+350 answer.

Does that clear it up at all?

[Anonymous]

It's confusing, don't feel bad. 🙂

Let's say I'm making an Excel formula to automatically add up the numbers in 2 columns, each 2000 records long. The data is in Column A and B, so my formula would be “=A1+B1” and then copy it down to all the rows. But, in order to make sure it's working right, I plan to randomly pick a couple rows and add up the numbers in the two columns to see if they match the amount in my sum column. Let's say the first random one I add up manually is 250+350. The sum column says 600. My brain is overworked from exam study, so I add wrong, and get 500. Seeing that the sum column and my manual addition don't match, I get worried, and incorrectly reject the sum column's accuracy, thinking that my formula isn't working right. Because of this, I decide that I need to double-check at least 50% of the figures…so instead of just adding up a couple sets of numbers, I add up 1000 sets of numbers. At the end of this checking, the formula has been right 999 of 1000 times, and I realize that I added wrong on the one exception.

At the end of checking the 1000 rows, my work is very effective – I can say with great certainty that the addition has been done correctly – but very inefficient, because I had to sit there and add up 1000 sets of numbers by hand instead of being able to rely on my tools, all because I incorrectly rejected the 250+350 answer.

Does that clear it up at all?

[fiona87]

Yes. So you incorrectly reject and end up doing additional substantive testing to check up on that balance. My brain was going “you reject and carry on? That seems pretty efficient, although not effective because you've incorrectly rejected something…”

Thanks!

FAR - 79 (11/27/13)
AUD - 76 (2/1/14)
REG - 77 (5/30/14)
BEC - 88 (7/18/14)

MN Ethics - 100% (3/9/14)

AND DONE! 8/1/14

[fiona87]

Yes. So you incorrectly reject and end up doing additional substantive testing to check up on that balance. My brain was going “you reject and carry on? That seems pretty efficient, although not effective because you've incorrectly rejected something…”

Thanks!

FAR - 79 (11/27/13)
AUD - 76 (2/1/14)
REG - 77 (5/30/14)
BEC - 88 (7/18/14)

MN Ethics - 100% (3/9/14)

AND DONE! 8/1/14

[jlondon]

just finished the audit ninja note from the free sample.. and had the same exact question.. lol.. Good timing on this question and answer.

BEC: 69, 57, 72, 73, (anticipated for 4/4/2015)
AUD: 65, 63, 74, 84!!! (expires 7/31/2015)
FAR: 63, 57, (scheduled for 4/1/2015)
REG: ... 42, (Anticipated to be around 5/20~)

-Every Set Back is a Set Up for a Major Come Back #motivation

"I've missed over 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost over 300 games. 26 times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot, and missed. I've failed, over and over and over again in my life. And that is why, I succeed." - Michael Jordan

"You are not your past, but the resources and capabilities you glean from it" -Jordan Belfort

[jlondon]

just finished the audit ninja note from the free sample.. and had the same exact question.. lol.. Good timing on this question and answer.

BEC: 69, 57, 72, 73, (anticipated for 4/4/2015)
AUD: 65, 63, 74, 84!!! (expires 7/31/2015)
FAR: 63, 57, (scheduled for 4/1/2015)
REG: ... 42, (Anticipated to be around 5/20~)

-Every Set Back is a Set Up for a Major Come Back #motivation

"I've missed over 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost over 300 games. 26 times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot, and missed. I've failed, over and over and over again in my life. And that is why, I succeed." - Michael Jordan

"You are not your past, but the resources and capabilities you glean from it" -Jordan Belfort

[samdiegoCPA]

This always took me forever to understand and I had to say it out loud for it to make sense. It's like thinking backwards in a way.

AUD: 84
REG: 84
BEC: 79
FAR: 83

[samdiegoCPA]

This always took me forever to understand and I had to say it out loud for it to make sense. It's like thinking backwards in a way.

AUD: 84
REG: 84
BEC: 79
FAR: 83

[Gatorbates]

I had to deal with incorrect rejection for 30 years with the ladies. Until finally a gem understood that there should be no rejection at all.

Licensed Florida CPA:
B: 71, 73, 79
A: 83
R: 78 (expired), 77
F: 74, 74, 80

It's finally freaking over.

[Gatorbates]

I had to deal with incorrect rejection for 30 years with the ladies. Until finally a gem understood that there should be no rejection at all.

Licensed Florida CPA:
B: 71, 73, 79
A: 83
R: 78 (expired), 77
F: 74, 74, 80

It's finally freaking over.

[Author]

Replies