ACCA SBL September 2026: Scepticism Isn't Asking Questions (SD25 Examiner Report)

"Don't you think acquiring a company with high gearing is a risk?" scores nothing in SBL. The Sept/Dec 2025 examiner report called out a record proportion of candidates phrasing points as questions — and confirmed it weakens answers and cuts professional marks.

What the examiner actually said

In the SD25 exam, Task 1(a) carried 4 professional skills marks for scepticism: probing the information provided about an acquisition target. Markers reported that the proportion of candidates who phrased their points as questions was higher than in previous exams — things like "Don't you think we need to know the reason for the decrease in revenue?" The report is blunt: doing so weakens answers and reduces the ability to score professional marks. The board asked for your critical assessment. Handing them a list of questions hands the work straight back to them.

Scepticism is a conclusion, not a query

Scepticism means adopting a questioning approach — probing whether the evidence supports the story — and then expressing what you found as statements. The underlying concerns candidates raised (declining revenue, high gearing) were valid. The marks were lost purely in the delivery. A sceptical answer says what the evidence suggests, what it fails to prove, and what that means for the decision.

The professional marks are the pass margin

Every SBL exam carries 20 professional skills marks. In SD25, scoring 2.66 or 4 on Task 1(a) scepticism required probing both financial and non-financial factors well — candidates who only challenged one side capped their own marks. And tone matters everywhere: in Task 3(b), candidates writing to the board described the board's own NEDs as "incompetent". A valid concern about ESG experience, expressed in a way that torpedoes the communication marks.

Worked example: question vs scepticism

Wrong: "Don't you think we need to know why revenue has declined?" (A question. The marker finds no assessment to reward.)

Right: "The chair attributes the revenue decline to sector conditions, but our own hotels grew revenue over the same period, which suggests company-specific causes. Until due diligence establishes whether pricing or occupancy is driving the fall, the figures overstate Dulit's attractiveness." (Probes the evidence, reaches a position. Scepticism marks earned.)

What to do before September

In your next mock, search your answer for question marks. Convert every one into an assertion: what the evidence suggests, plus the implication for the decision. If you can't assert anything, the point wasn't developed enough to make.

Challenge the source, not just the number. Who wrote the exhibit, and what do they want? An email from the seller's chair is a sales pitch — treat its claims accordingly. That's the probing the SD25 marker rewarded.

Check the recipient before you write. Concerns about directors go to those same directors phrased as gaps to address, never as verdicts on their competence.

The bottom line

20 professional marks — a fifth of the exam — sit in how you deliver, and scepticism is the skill candidates misread most. The evidence from SD25 is that more candidates than ever are asking the board questions instead of advising it. In September, be the candidate with a position.