Part (b) for 6 marks required an explanation of six indicators the company was not a going concern. Candidates performed well on this question.

Most candidates were able to identify six indicators from the scenario; this resulted in them achieving 3 marks.

However in order to gain the final 3 marks, candidates were required to explain why this indicator could impact the going concern of Clarinet. Many did not do this, or the explanations provided did not give sufficient depth often simply stating “this could impact the going concern status”. This would not have scored marks as it does not make clear how the going concern status could be impacted.

The requirement verb was to “explain” therefore sufficient detail was required to score the 1 mark available per point. Once again candidates are reminded to look carefully at the verb at the beginning of the question requirement, as this should help them to understand the level of detail required for their answers.

A small minority of candidates misread the requirement and provided indicators from the scenario that Clarinet was a going concern, rather than was not. This can only be due to a failure to read the question requirement properly.