You are correct excuse my comment. However I would say that in about 99% of practice problems, we are just given the number of exposures or claims required for full credibility. I guess what i am saying is that for this sitting they really often either presented a new “twist” on a topic causing a deviation of some sort either large or small from the source material OR in this case with the standard normal example, they went deep into the syllibus and selected the least commonly practiced/mentioned topics (I forgot that this was even in the source material and of course I did not double check this before posting) for the exam.
Connecting Actuaries