View Single Post
  #64  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:13 PM
XP-SteveScoles's Avatar
XP-SteveScoles XP-SteveScoles is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
College: University of Manitoba
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inveniamviam View Post
Using information from a separate part of the question (the new OH variances that they provided once part of the OH was classified as fixed), I was able to back into what I think the AV must have been, and I noted on that on my paper too. I had decided one of the OH variances shouldn't have changed, even with the partial re-classification to fixed OH, so I backed into AV using that formula and noted why I thought that was the AV.

However, I haven't seen a question that requires you to work backwards in this way from a later part of the question (part c, for example, which comes with new information) and go back to your first answer (part a & b, for example) to "fix" it, so I still feel it's defective. But I will reserve judgment until I see the questions posted, as I know it'll be a different experience when I read it in non-exam conditions!
You shouldn't have to go backward (with later information) to solve a problem - if that was truly the case, then the question would be defective.

I'm now even more intrigued to see this question!

(I live and die these tough SDM questions with you folks)

Steve
__________________
I help students pass SDM
steve.scoles@xpactuarial.com

XP premium package SDM pass rate in Spring 2019 was 91.7%!

Using anything less is clearly a very poor strategic decision
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.11014 seconds with 9 queries