Gram - take a deep breath … we all feel what you are describing to some extent. You have 2 weeks to improve and that is more than enough time!
Here is how I am working on improving. I am taking a full exam each day of the weekend. Then I go over the exam twice: first time, immediately after I finish the PM, I score myself while reading the model answer, paying close attention to the language used. I then re-write (with a red pen) any sections on my exam paper - stressing key words and ways the model answers work - e.g. “longer time to make up shortfall”, “increase/decrease the allocation to”, Mr. X has a long, two/three/multi-stage time horizon", “bond should/should not be purchase as it does/does not fully compensate for the risks”, always showing numbers in liquidity calculations.
The second reading I do the next day, as the exam is still fresh, and I go over it to help cement the style, and it improves, though slowly. You should have enough time to take at least 4-6 mocks, which should be good enough for meaningful improvement.
Another observation is about the order of thinking about a question. The exam assumes you understand the material. Thus, if it asks for a justification, it assumes you know the reasons provided by the CFAI text - e.g. all the attributes of a DB plan that increase/decrease risk tolerance,and that you will then search the text of the vignette for supporting data, and answer succinctly and fully. They are also quite fair - when they ask for two justifications/reasons there are usually 4 or 5 possible answers, so,even if in the “heat of battle” you forget that a lower ratio of retired lives indicates higher ability to assume risk, it is almost certain that you can get full marks without even thinking about it.
The problem, IMHO and experience(!), is when someone (me, for example) does not have a clear grasp of the material - then they try to find a reason from the text, and this is often takes a long time, is confusing as you don’t really know how to answer, stresses you greatly and leads to a vicious cycle where your AM goes downhill very quickly - half the battle is not getting to this scenario.
In the end, you need to pass, not to score 100, and this requires something around a 62-64 in the opinion of most people. Also, some things you will be better at than others. In order to maximize your chances of not falling into the vicious cycle you need to optimize on two levels: first, answer the AM sections you are good at - take your time to get as close to full marks as possible - I have seen many a passing matrix in previous years where someone didn’t even manage to write down anything in the last 2-3 questions (as per their statement) and still passed comfortably, because this is a point collection war, not a beauty pageant. Also, the PM can save you but only if you fight for every point on the AM. When you are doing a question, I suggest you work on your exam discipline - when there is something you don’t clearly know how to answer after thinking about it for 10-15 seconds, move on. This will, of course, happen less on those sections you know well, and will boost your confidence and decrease your chance of wasting precious time.
I began two weeks ago scoring around 50% on the AM and am now up to high 60s with very stringent grading (IMHO). PMs - started in the low 60s and now up to mid 70s. In the end, if you can get 75 in the PM you ought to pass with a 55 on the AM, but many many people who are band 9 or 10 don’t fight enough for those 5-6 AM points that make all the difference, and that’s merely 2 or 3 subsections of a single question … so be thoughtful and good luck!
Magnus
AF has helped me a great deal by just knowing there is a place to discuss and share and where kind people like Bill (a.k.a. S2000) are always there to support and teach (as the Code requires us all - Charterholders and Candidates, by the way)