[jimboace88]

Does anyone know if the people who score the test account for the fact that questions can be answered in more than one way due to vague fact patterns? I know it’s probably a stupid question to even ask, but as I go through my F9 sims for Becker I have an example that talks about a contribution in which the principal is to remain intact and the earnings are to be spent on construction of a new building. Couldn’t that be considered a permanently restricted contribution? I thought one of the essential points of the definition of permanently restricted was that only earnings can be spent–not principal.

Of course, the answer says that the proper classification is “temporarily restricted – capital outlay.” I can see how that would be a correct answer, but I can also see how permanently restricted would be correct. Although it sounds like a trivial matter, I’m sure, I won’t feel that it is all that trivial when I am victimized by poor question writing in my real exam.

FAR 07/27/11 - 87
AUD 10/01/11 - 85
BEC 11/15/11 - 87
REG 01/03/12 - 92

[jimboace88]

Also–any tips for getting the research questions right? This is another area where the vague nature of the question is killing me–“find the place in the codification where such and such is mentioned.” Meanwhile, “such and such” is mentioned in hundreds of places and a lot of them look like plausible answers!

FAR 07/27/11 - 87
AUD 10/01/11 - 85
BEC 11/15/11 - 87
REG 01/03/12 - 92

[Anonymous]

What exactly was the question asking? I believe the principal is considered permanently restricted, but the investment earnings are temporarily restricted.

[jimboace88]

Right…the question just leaves it as a blanket statement, though, and leaves it up to the candidate to decide if they were asking about the earnings or the principal. I'm hoping I don't come across something so atrociously worded on my real exam, but I'm sure I will because that's just my luck.

FAR 07/27/11 - 87
AUD 10/01/11 - 85
BEC 11/15/11 - 87
REG 01/03/12 - 92

[Anonymous]

Hmm…well that's a lousy question. I hope I don't get any like that either.

[anonymous]

Whenever I get a stupid question like that I tell myself that it is a released AICPA question because the AICPA realized it was vague and unclear, and thus vague and unclear questions will NOT show up on my actual exam because they have already been filtered out and picked up by Becker. It's probably wishful thinking, but it helps me not get so worked up about it. Sometimes I write to Becker too, if I'm REALLY irked or don't understand something — the quality of response varies, but they can be helpful in explaining things.

REG -- October 3!!
FAR -- Pass
BEC -- Pass
AUD -- Pass

[IwannaBaCPA]

A lot of questions are poorly worded and it is likely a few will still end up on your actual exam…don't stress about it, do your best and move on to the next…don't waste time getting angry about a question during your exam because FAR certainly requires the full 4 hours and you need to manage your time well. I left just under 2 hours for the SIMS and really needed every second of it! I didn't let myself get hung up on a couple confusing questions…

As for the research, I think they are fairly specific as to what they are looking for. At least that was my experience on the exam…that doesn't mean it is easy to find what they want either…I struggled with the research question I had, but I eventually found it. Just be sure that what you ultimately find actually satisfies the needs of the question. Just finding something that is related won't get you full credit and the research is now worth the same as the other SIMS…

Good luck!!

BEC: 79 - April 2011
FAR: 78 - May 2011
AUD: 81 - May 2012
REG: 79 - October 2012
Ethics: Passed - March 2013
I am finally DONE!

[Anonymous]

I took Reg several months back and had two questions that came up on my test that were incorrect. I vividly remembered the problems and went back and researched them after the exam. One was a calculation problem that did not have a correct answer based on the info given. I researched it up and down. Then another one was very similar that to something I had from Becker. Did not have a correct answer. All of the answer options were explicitly wrong when I went back through the book and researched them.

[Anonymous]

I just did the same question and had the same thought process as you. After rereading the question and trying to figure out why, i discovered in the beg of the statement it says “earning related to cash”, therefore it is asking about hte earnings (interest) not the principle contribution. hope that helps a little

[Anonymous]

@CPAwinning

I took REG in April and one of my sims was pretty ambiguous. It sucked, but I just had to make an assumption about what they were asking for and move on. From what I've heard, that isn't too uncommon with REG.

[jimboace88]

I think the question writers feel proud of themselves for being able to stump the exam takers. Clearly we don't work hard enough and we deserve to face more difficulty in the form of questions with sweeping assumptions taken for granted.

FAR 07/27/11 - 87
AUD 10/01/11 - 85
BEC 11/15/11 - 87
REG 01/03/12 - 92

[Anonymous]

@Bad Asset

I had two MCQ where there were absolutely no right answers. That is what I was talking about. I looked for the answers and found them after the test and the correct answer was not an option. I also went by Becker on the calculation that I had, plus some stuff from Wiley and Yaegar I found online and I kept getting the same answer based on the calculations I had. I remembered the numbers and everything since I looked at those two problems so long. I assure you that they messed something up and didn't put a correct answer. It could not have been anything different.

[Author]

Replies