PDA

View Full Version : Part 5, Question #17


takeshire
07-29-2004, 10:32 AM
I can prove that statement 2 is false. If you would like to see my appeal, feel free to email me at

takeshire@yahoo.com.


I wish luck and good fortune to all appealing people.

...and also some unappealing people too.

Schroeder
07-29-2004, 04:55 PM
Tiller - Individual Risk Rating

"Consequently, MSL’s increase as the size of the risk (as measured by premium or credibility) increases."

Part 5 - #17

Which of the following statements are true concerning ISO's Commercial General Liability (CGL) Experience Rating Plan:

2. The MSL increases as the size of the risk increases.

This is taken almost verbatim from the paper. What possibly could you be appealing?

mathseal
07-29-2004, 05:26 PM
Takeshire is intent on appealing any shall we say "ambiguity of truth" that is counted against his score of a 5.

(whether it is in the paper or not, and whether it is common english usage for everyone else is beyond his scope)

More on his appeal can be found in the "appeal team" thread

takeshire
07-29-2004, 06:50 PM
I can prove that statement 2 is false. If you would like to see my appeal, feel free to email me at

takeshire@yahoo.com.


I wish luck and good fortune to all appealing people.

just_josh-ing
08-01-2004, 12:26 PM
Having read through takeshire's appeal, I was convinced. Of course it's hard to argue with a direct quote, but I thought the exams were meant to test our understanding of the material, not our ability to remember an individual statement in the text, whether it is accurate or not.

I think some of the boneheads commenting on these threads don't have sufficient capacity in their thick skulls to think independently. And they seem to have some suppressed rage that they are venting here. Perhaps due to a childhood full of neglect and a passive aggressive parenting style.

Pitiable.


-JJ

mathseal
08-02-2004, 11:20 AM
Josh,
Am I a bonehead?

There are far more polarized people than I on this forum. Perhaps I am commenting where it's not wanted, but then again this is a public bulletin board. So you've got to be open to everyone's perspectives, be they Takeshire, MMM, Elmo or me.
(In some sense that's why *I* am here. I'm a new FCAS and I'm soaking in perspectives so I can be a better CAS volunteer.

I admit the exams aren't perfect. At times they are REALLY badly done. But Takeshire has taken the prespective that imperfection is an entitlement to boost his score. Why? Because it risks nothing, and the reward is just too tempting.
We should strive to eliminate the legitimate problems with the exams. Not the idea that even question needs to be written with lawyer-precise language.


If I hand you a rate filing, and say we need increase, and I say:
"As premium rises then loss ratios improve".
If you cry
"False! I know there are big accounts that have poorer loss ratios".
Or "False the extra premium could correspond to Commission".
Or "That depends on whether an improved loss ratio a higher or lower # - The consumers have a different perspective"
- if you do this, I don't want you working for me. You think too independently. :)

=======
If you look around you'll see I am an open-minded bonehead... I've discussed some of his other ideas in more favorable light.

For example i'll admit Takeshire makes an interesting point in his appeal for #16 (not #17). Other than the following the author's convention, I can't see a compelling reason to think that the question should refer to the historical losses rather than modelled losses.

takeshire
08-08-2004, 07:09 PM
Mathseal,

Thanks for your open-mindedness. I didn't realize that you were so moved by my #16 appeal.

My latest #17 appeal has swayed several takers, and I'll bet if you read it, even being unconvinced as you are, you would admit that my argument is compelling.

Let me correct an impression that you have of my motivation for appealing item #17.

I am not appealing item #17 simply because it is poorly worded. I was actually almost convinced to not appeal by ramanujan's arguments. A little bird kept on nagging at me, however, because ramanujan's response implied that premium alone determines the MSL. I knew that could not be true, and that was the basis for my response on the exam.

It is interesting to hear your perspective, however.

My understanding of the appeals process is that the only way for the committee to be fair is to objectively look at the quality and ambiguity of the exam items themselves. After all, on what other objective basis does the candidate have to appeal?

If exam committee members are prejudiced against appeals that point to ambiguities in items, they are effectively saying that there should only be one valid perspective.

Perhaps that is why some common flaws of actuaries, as cited by other professionals, are a lack of creativity, a difficulty seeing different perspectives, and difficulty seeing the big picture. Only the most conforming in thought are allowed through the gates, and they all reinforce one another's sense of single-right answer-ness.

But back from that tangent, I truly think that all successful appeals will point out ambiguities in the exam itself. And I think objective appeal-decision-making needs to ensure that candidates are not penalized because of these ambiguities.

Let me point out something else. Your perspective makes it appear that it would be easy to find ambiguities all over the exam, and we have to allow some or else we won't have an exam at all. I think, it's very difficult to "find" an ambiguity on the exam after taking it. In other words, it's difficult to prove your perspective was valid when you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place. I have not appealed a single item where that was the case.

In dismissing my item #17 appeal, you make it appear that a "good" actuary would think "Yes it's true in general, so I agree that the statement is true." Perhaps that's true for a pricing actuary.

But what about an actuary crunching through the MSL's at NAIC? Would they say that? I doubt it. I think you're on dangerous ground if you say that a good actuary will only look at things from a broad perspective at all times, and will never answer a question in a more technical manner.


Takeshire

just_josh-ing
08-12-2004, 05:57 PM
Mathseal,

I wasn't actually referring to you. I was speaking to the group of boneheads at large. Sorry to offend you. My comment was actually meant for the people who I found offensive.

By the way, I like your seal. :) What does the "n" stand for?


JJ

Colymbosathon ecplecticos
08-12-2004, 06:30 PM
If you take the distance around a circle and divide it by the length of the longest straight line inside that same circle, you always get the same number. This number has a name, it is called "n".

mathseal
08-12-2004, 08:23 PM
"n" indeed! I guess my handwriting lags behind my creative streak.

There was a "Monty" cartoon just like that maybe 2 months ago. The alien named "pi" was in a bar, and the guy next to him starts up a conversation.

Guy: How'd you get that name? You like pies or something?
Pi: On my planet, the leaders have integers, and most of the population has rational fractions. But I as an outcast was condemned to bear the name Pi in shame - a transcendental irrational....
Guy: Wait, wait, wait... Pie is a number?!
Pi: {in disbelief} I thought humans were required to study mathematics?
Guy: Some of us maybe, but the rest have calculators.

takeshire
08-12-2004, 11:51 PM
That pi seal is pretty creative, mathseal...

Perhaps I went a little overboard. :roll:

By the way, I think I meant ISO and not NAIC.

Avi
08-13-2004, 12:58 AM
"n" indeed! I guess my handwriting lags behind my creative streak.

There was a "Monty" cartoon just like that maybe 2 months ago. The alien named "pi" was in a bar, and the guy next to him starts up a conversation.

Guy: How'd you get that name? You like pies or something?
Pi: On my planet, the leaders have integers, and most of the population has rational fractions. But I as an outcast was condemned to bear the name Pi in shame - a transcendental irrational....
Guy: Wait, wait, wait... Pie is a number?!
Pi: {in disbelief} I thought humans were required to study mathematics?
Guy: Some of us maybe, but the rest have calculators.

The guys name is moondog.

mathseal
08-13-2004, 10:28 AM
<<By the way, I think I meant ISO and not NAIC.>>

By coincidence I've worked at ISO, and on a few occasions did indeed work on projects related to the experience rating plan MSL's. :wink:

So while you're right that I'd expect my staff to know that MSL's key off the basic limit premium (not the total premium) on an essay question, I'd still give them a hard time if they answered false to "As a risk's size increases, the MSL increases".

You'll see questions like this over and over on the exam:
As a risk size increases, the MSL increases - true
As a risk size increases, the Credibility increases - true
As a policy limit increases, the rate increases - true
As a policy limit increases, the rate per $M limit increases - false

takeshire
08-13-2004, 12:25 PM
You'll see questions like this over and over on the exam:
1. As a risk size increases, the MSL increases - true
2. As a risk size increases, the Credibility increases - true
3. As a policy limit increases, the rate increases - true


Were I on the exam committee, I would push to make sure that "true" statements are worded so they are always true. Replacing "increases" with "tends to increase" within all these would be a simple enough matter. That precautionary step would greatly reduce ambiguity on these questions.

1a. As the size of the risk increases, the MSL tends to increase - true
2a. As the size of the risk increases, the Credibility tends to increase – true
3a. As a policy limit increases, the rate tends to increase – true

I don’t think there is only one correct way to think about the initial statements, but I would argue that the adjusted statements are unequivocally true:

Reading the statement, stressed as follows:

“As the size of the RISK increases, the msl increases,”

I conclude that the statement is false. Stressing the word "risk" implies that it is the size of the RISK and not something else (i.e. the basic limits portion of the risk) that causes the msl to increase. Simply altering word stress, makes the statement appear incorrect. I consider that unacceptable ambiguity for a true/false question. Since you’re planning on serving on the exam committee, I would hope you could help to guard against such ambiguity on future exams. Then discussions like ours would take place much less frequently.

Also note that credibility, as calculated for the ISO MSL, according to Tiller, is a function of the basic limits premium, and not the premium. Therefore, statement two, if referring to the formula
Credibility=P/(P+100K)
can also be answered false in a true/false question sense.

I believe I've seen true/false statements worded like 1a, 2a and 3a on prior exams I've either studied from or taken. If those statements would have been sufficiently true without the modifier, "tends to," why was the modifier ever included?

It's possible that the item-writer for this exam was not aware, when writing the item, that it was the basic limits portion of the risk that was the root of the dependency.


Takeshire

just_josh-ing
08-27-2004, 10:29 PM
Or sometimes, they use the word "generally" as on one of the true/false questions in the 2003 version of exam 6.

That can't use qualifiers on some questions and not use such qualifiers on other questions and expect us to guess that both statements are intended to mean the same thing.


Mathseal, I've given thought to your argument about lawyer-like language on exams, and I disagree with you. When actuaries give reserve opinions, we are required to write with lawyer-like precision. To be able to do that, we must learn to think with lawyer-like precision. I would try to remove ambiguous language from any work that I do. And I wouldn't fault an actuarial student for thinking in a precise manner.