Part (b) was for 6 marks, and described a client where unauthorised additions had been made to payroll, and contradictory audit evidence had been obtained. Candidates were asked to explain the term “professional skepticism” and to recommend further actions to be taken by the auditor. Answers here were reasonably good, with most candidates able to attempt an explanation of the term, and most identifying poor controls leading to a possible fraud involving the payroll supervisor. Some very specific further procedures were often recommended, and candidates often scored better on part (b) than part (a) for this question.