Candidates were required to identify risks that could lead to sales and cash receipts being incomplete and then discuss how tests of control and substantive procedures could be used to confirm the assertion of completeness. The question was worth 10 marks.

Part (i) was worth 4 marks; candidates providing 4 relevant points linked to the scenario obtained these marks. Part (ii) was worth 6 marks with the discussion requirement verb indicating that comment was necessary on how effective tests of controls and substantive procedures were in an environment where cash was used extensively.

Part (i) was generally answered well with many candidates being quite realistic and/or inventive regarding how either cash could be stolen or visitors to the park obtain entry without paying. As well as points mentioned in the marking scheme, more innovative comments including ticket staff giving away free tickets to family members and two security guards being insufficient to guard the cash (apparently two guards collude to steal cash whereas three would not?).

A minority of answers tended to focus on control weaknesses without actually stating how this affecting completeness of income. For example, answers could mention a control weakness was not reconciling tickets sold to cash received without specifically stating that an error would indicate tickets had been “sold” for no income, which affected the completeness assertion.