Candidates were required to list the weaknesses in the control system for counting inventory at one of the client depots and then explain the weakness and state how the weakness could be overcome. In other words, the question was based on a letter of weakness, although the specific format for that letter was not required.

While not completely transparent, the marking scheme followed the convention of parts (a) and (b). The requirement verb was “list” indicating that simply the weakness was required to obtain a mark.

In this case three procedures would provided the full 3 marks for sub-question

(i) as those procedures had to be related to the scenario, as in part (a). This meant that there were 3 marks for each section in 
(ii) to explain the weakness (1.5 marks) and state how the weakness could be overcome (again 1.5 marks).

A candidate providing valid weaknesses, with an explanation and method of overcoming that weakness could obtain full marks. The scheme was possibly generous in allowing 1.5 marks for explanation and recommendation.

In practice, most candidates provided more than three weaknesses with some explanation and methods of overcoming each weakness. As the question requirement did not place any cap on the number of weaknesses that could be mentioned in the answer, all valid weaknesses were marked.

This scheme allowed many candidates to obtain full marks in this section with most candidates deserving those marks as many clear and well thought out comments were made.

For the future, where letter of weakness type questions are allowed, a cap will be placed on the number of weaknesses allowed to provide a clear and transparent guide to candidates.

As already noted, the overall standard of answers to this section was high. The identification of weaknesses and how to respond to those weaknesses had clearly been well learned/taught enabling candidates to provide sound answers.

The difficulty for many candidates appeared to be simply when to stop writing as the scenario did include six or seven key weaknesses where marks could be obtained. Following the published guidance from the examiner in this respect in the Examiner’s Approach may have helped provide this guidance.

Common errors and reasons why those errors did not obtain marks included:

Overall, the question was well answered, with almost all candidates correctly using the information in the scenario .