Sign up  |  Log in

How many of you guys were shocked by the first question in AM?

I had blackout for some questions on both AM and PM part. Those are questions which I was practicing at home but couldn’t recall formula or concept due to time pressure on real exam. Now, after time distance, and while am reading similar experiences, I think I did overall good job. I am still less confident than after Level 2 but this is because of an enigma of AM grading. 

I don't sell a smiling dog, forget about it .
The day before, walking through the park, he met me with her.

Then make sure you did everything you could to prepare—enroll in a review workshop to ace it on exam day.

Dick wrote:

Infidel Cash Flo wrote:

First Q was a gift to me.

Did you have to find the answer to the second question before solving the first? 

That was where it got me and why I wasted time on it that I shouldn’t have had.

The harder the struggle, the more glorious the triumph.

pakwarrior wrote:

Dick wrote:

Infidel Cash Flo wrote:

First Q was a gift to me.

Did you have to find the answer to the second question before solving the first? 

That was where it got me and why I wasted time on it that I shouldn’t have had.

It’s one of 2 things:

1)CFAI made a  mistake and put them out of order (i doubt this, I’m sure the QC process is extensive)

2) It was a straight up attempt to trip us up and get us to second guess ourselves.

I myself was like, ummm wait, so the answer to part 2 is something I calculated for part 1? Luckily I just took it for what it was and said, okay well thanks for the extra free time and points. 

Any of two possibilities above should result with full points if you correctly solved both. So why does it matter?

I don't sell a smiling dog, forget about it .
The day before, walking through the park, he met me with her.

me too! i wasn’t sure at the time if i was thrown by the stress of starting the exam 7 minutes late or this was the intention

Just my 2 cents:

It would be great we could disclose the question so that to discuss it more precisely, but the first part could be solved without knowing the answer to part 2 (although I did the way you have done). Just read the theory one more time, you will see my point. So, there was no trick 

AndyG wrote:

Just my 2 cents:

 It would be great we could disclose the question so that to discuss it more precisely, but the first part could be solve without knowing the answer to part 2 (although I did the way you have done). Just read the theory one more time, you will see my point. So, there was no trick 

of course i can comply with the professional conduct rules, although since the institute publishes the am mock I wonder if they could somewhat relaxing this policy..

sure, my point was not the ethical aspect here, and I think we are not violating anything here so far :) I was referring to the question itself saying that there could be more than one option to solve the first part

Im gonna fail…
i could make it this year but :(
I can get on AM is ~55%
PM should be around ~ 66-67%

pretty sure it is fail

AndyG wrote:

sure, my point was not the ethical aspect here, and I think we are not violating anything here so far :) I was referring to the question itself saying that there could be more than one option to solve the first part

Idk the other way….only learned one but I’ll have to look that up.

Dubinko wrote:

Im gonna fail…
i could make it this year but :(
I can get on AM is ~55%
PM should be around ~ 66-67%

pretty sure it is fail

Don’t lose hope. You might just make it. No one exactly knows the MPS. Your expected scores are borderline (ok to be honest a little below borderline IMHO). But who knows, there have been several matrices in the past which no one can expect to pass. So, you can still might just sneak through. All the best :)

AndyG wrote:

Just my 2 cents:

It would be great we could disclose the question so that to discuss it more precisely, but the first part could be solved without knowing the answer to part 2 (although I did the way you have done). Just read the theory one more time, you will see my point. So, there was no trick 

I get your point but this is a public forum where if we discussed specific questions while revealing the topic then non LIII candidates could read it. However, only level 3 candidates have and access to our exam next year. 

Dubinko wrote:

Im gonna fail…
i could make it this year but :(
I can get on AM is ~55%
PM should be around ~ 66-67%

pretty sure it is fail

Come On…Dubinko, turn on positive vibration:)

I don't sell a smiling dog, forget about it .
The day before, walking through the park, he met me with her.

i hadn’t really thought of it, but it is kind of ****ty, the sequencing.  i might submit a complaint about this question. i know i wasted time on it and wound up doing something silly as a result in the end when i came back to it.  

I also thought and did that, but I was thinking myself dump as why would any one give part 2 to solve part 1 but at that time that looked only possibility to me, fingers crossed

Flashback wrote:

Come On…Dubinko, turn on positive vibration:)

Thanks Flashback, positive vibes are ON :) ..well who knows, maybe i will make it

Someone on this thread said there is a way to do part i without solving for part ii. Not sure of how, but if so then I guess its fair. No matter what, its fair, but confusing as heck. 

googs1484 wrote:

Someone on this thread said there is a way to do part i without solving for part ii. Not sure of how, but if so then I guess its fair. No matter what, its fair, but confusing as heck. 

I was the “someone” :) Just write down the formula for the the two, substitute the part of the 1st formula with the 2nd one, and probably you will see what I mean. I doubt I can go into more details other than this

googs1484 wrote:

2) It was a straight up attempt to trip us up and get us to second guess ourselves.

I mean those questions are fair because they show the difference between a well prepared and not so well prepared candidate. I don’t mind such tricks but CFAI should openly accept that they do ask questions with a twist.

The harder the struggle, the more glorious the triumph.

pakwarrior wrote:

googs1484 wrote:

2) It was a straight up attempt to trip us up and get us to second guess ourselves.

I mean those questions are fair because they show the difference between a well prepared and not so well prepared candidate. I don’t mind such tricks but CFAI should openly accept that they do ask questions with a twist.

I agree. 

AndyG wrote:

googs1484 wrote:

Someone on this thread said there is a way to do part i without solving for part ii. Not sure of how, but if so then I guess its fair. No matter what, its fair, but confusing as heck. 

I was the “someone” :) Just write down the formula for the the two, substitute the part of the 1st formula with the 2nd one, and probably you will see what I mean. I doubt I can go into more details other than this

Based on what I recall, I disagree. I was very confident at the time – it was in a set of my visualized notes I posted to reddit 2 weeks ago. But not sure of anything now. I really do wish I could get a look at the question, or a decent recreation of it, before Aug.

This should not be a “disputed” question. You don’t even need the second part to answer the first part. 

Like any test, you just need to be present enough to answer whatever is laid in front of you and not the fake test that ya built in your mind.

Gawd, I hope I pass.

IMO, as far as logic is correct, solving 2nd part first and then going to 1st part or vice versa, both should be fine. Don’t know why there is such a fuss around this.

Imagine if every time you solved a question later in the test you knew how to solve one before it? Sounds delightful. 

Infidel Cash Flo wrote:

Imagine if every time you solved a question later in the test you knew how to solve one before it? Sounds delightful. 

Well let’s be clear, that’s not exactly the scenario we were in. We didn’t HAVE TO solve part ii before i. A better way to say it is that the answer to part ii was already solved for in part i. I would like a test where the answer to every next question was in the answer before it. 

Part ii did not have to be solved first in order to solve for part i.  The CFAI text has the exact calculation for how to solve part i that doesn’t use what was asked for in part ii.

joseph_a wrote:

Part ii did not have to be solved first in order to solve for part i.  The CFAI text has the exact calculation for how to solve part i that doesn’t use what was asked for in part ii.

Even it was. They are two diff questions, you cannot use one answer in another, if you see past guideline answers. You need to do calculations again.

icetonez wrote:

i hadn’t really thought of it, but it is kind of ****ty, the sequencing.  i might submit a complaint about this question. i know i wasted time on it and wound up doing something silly as a result in the end when i came back to it.  

i wouldn’t complain. Let’s say I’m an average “try hard” L3 candidate, but was lucky to have hit a similar question maybe 2 weeks out, and revised it.

I didn’t notice any difficulty. For the first part, I solved anything tangential that needed solving. I saw them as linked travelling forward in sequence.

i had my own tough spots, but that seemed merely obscure – it was definitely covered in TT and/or past exams (2009).

This wasn’t the only question designed to trip us up. The very last part of the last AM question included information that could have made people second guess an earlier question part. Think ratios. 

implex wrote:

joseph_a wrote:

Part ii did not have to be solved first in order to solve for part i.  The CFAI text has the exact calculation for how to solve part i that doesn’t use what was asked for in part ii.

Even it was. They are two diff questions, you cannot use one answer in another, if you see past guideline answers. You need to do calculations again.

Still trying to find this.