(b) ‘opinion shopping’; (5 marks)
第1题:
(b) Describe the content of a reference. (5 marks)
第2题:
(ii) the panel interview with more than one interviewer. (5 marks)
The advantages of such interviews are that they allow opinion and views to be shared amongst the panel. They provide a more complete and coherent approach, hence problems of bias inherent in face to face interviews can be reduced.
They may also be appropriate where an individual with specialist or technical skills has to support the interviewer in relation to assessing the technical competencies of the interviewee.The disadvantages are that panel interviews can be difficult to control, interviewers may deviate or ask irrelevant questions and they can be easily dominated by a strong personality who is able unduly to influence others. In addition,
such interviews can often result in disagreement amongst the panel members.
第3题:
(ii) job enlargement; (5 marks)
第4题:
(b) Describe the advantages of external recruitment. (5 marks)
第5题:
(c) Discuss the ethical responsibility of the company accountant in ensuring that manipulation of the statement
of cash flows, such as that suggested by the directors, does not occur. (5 marks)
Note: requirements (b) and (c) include 2 professional marks in total for the quality of the discussion.
第6题:
(iv) critiques the performance measurement system at TSC. (5 marks
第7题:
(b) continuous auditing; (5 marks)
第8题:
(ii) Briefly explain the implications of Parr & Co’s audit opinion for your audit opinion on the consolidated
financial statements of Cleeves Co for the year ended 30 September 2006. (3 marks)
第9题:
5. Which is the best title(标题)“the passage?
A. Wang Lin-s life
B. Online shopping in China
C. Shopping on line is not safe
第10题:
第11题:
第12题:
第13题:
(b) Calculate the internal rate of return of the proposed investment and comment on your findings. (5 marks)
第14题:
(b) How can Maslow’s theory be applied to the motivation of staff? (5 marks)
第15题:
(iii) job enrichment. (5 marks)
第16题:
5 All managers need to understand the importance of motivation in the workplace.
Required:
(a) Explain the ‘content theory’ of motivation. (5 marks)
第17题:
(ii) Construct the argument against Professor West’s opinion, and in favour of Professor Leroi’s opinion that
a principles-based approach would be preferable in developing countries. Your answer should consider
the particular situations of developing countries. (10 marks)
第18题:
(iii) Whether or not you agree with the statement of the marketing director in note (9) above. (5 marks)
Professional marks for appropriateness of format, style. and structure of the report. (4 marks)
(iii) The marketing director is certainly correct in recognising that success is dependent on levels of service quality provided
by HFG to its clients. However, whilst the number of complaints is an important performance measure, it needs to be
used with caution. The nature of a complaint is, very often, far more indicative of the absence, or a lack, of service
quality. For example, the fact that 50 clients complained about having to wait for a longer time than they expected to
access gymnasium equipment is insignificant when compared to an accident arising from failure to maintain properly a
piece of gymnasium equipment. Moreover, the marketing director ought to be aware that the absolute number of
complaints may be misleading as much depends on the number of clients serviced during any given period. Thus, in
comparing the number of complaints received by the three centres then a relative measure of complaints received per
1,000 client days would be far more useful than the absolute number of complaints received.
The marketing director should also be advised that the number of complaints can give a misleading picture of the quality
of service provision since individuals have different levels of willingness to complain in similar situations.
The marketing director seems to accept the current level of complaints but is unwilling to accept any increase above this
level. This is not indicative of a quality-oriented organisation which would seek to reduce the number of complaints over
time via a programme of ‘continuous improvement’.
From the foregoing comments one can conclude that it would be myopic to focus on the number of client complaints
as being the only performance measure necessary to measure the quality of service provision. Other performance
measures which may indicate the level of service quality provided to clients by HFG are as follows:
– Staff responsiveness assumes critical significance in service industries. Hence the time taken to resolve client
queries by health centre staff is an important indicator of the level of service quality provided to clients.
– Staff appearance may be viewed as reflecting the image of the centres.
– The comfort of bedrooms and public rooms including facilities such as air-conditioning, tea/coffee-making and cold
drinks facilities, and office facilities such as e-mail, facsimile and photocopying.
– The availability of services such as the time taken to gain an appointment with a dietician or fitness consultant.
– The cleanliness of all areas within the centres will enhance the reputation of HFG. Conversely, unclean areas will
potentially deter clients from making repeat visits and/or recommendations to friends, colleagues etc.
– The presence of safety measures and the frequency of inspections made regarding gymnasium equipment within
the centres and compliance with legislation are of paramount importance in businesses like that of HFG.
– The achievement of target reductions in weight that have been agreed between centre consultants and clients.
(Other relevant measures would be acceptable.)
第19题:
In relation to the courts’ powers to interpret legislation, explain and differentiate between:
(a) the literal approach, including the golden rule; and (5 marks)
(b) the purposive approach, including the mischief rule. (5 marks)
Tutorial note:
In order to apply any piece of legislation, judges have to determine its meaning. In other words they are required to interpret the
statute before them in order to give it meaning. The diffi culty, however, is that the words in statutes do not speak for themselves and
interpretation is an active process, and at least potentially a subjective one depending on the situation of the person who is doing
the interpreting.
Judges have considerable power in deciding the actual meaning of statutes, especially when they are able to deploy a number of
competing, not to say contradictory, mechanisms for deciding the meaning of the statute before them. There are, essentially, two
contrasting views as to how judges should go about determining the meaning of a statute – the restrictive, literal approach and the
more permissive, purposive approach.
(a) The literal approach
The literal approach is dominant in the English legal system, although it is not without critics, and devices do exist for
circumventing it when it is seen as too restrictive. This view of judicial interpretation holds that the judge should look primarily
to the words of the legislation in order to construe its meaning and, except in the very limited circumstances considered below,
should not look outside of, or behind, the legislation in an attempt to fi nd its meaning.
Within the context of the literal approach there are two distinct rules:
(i) The literal rule
Under this rule, the judge is required to consider what the legislation actually says rather than considering what it might
mean. In order to achieve this end, the judge should give words in legislation their literal meaning, that is, their plain,
ordinary, everyday meaning, even if the effect of this is to produce what might be considered an otherwise unjust or
undesirable outcome (Fisher v Bell (1961)) in which the court chose to follow the contract law literal interpretation of
the meaning of offer in the Act in question and declined to consider the usual non-legal literal interpretation of the word
(offer).
(ii) The golden rule
This rule is applied in circumstances where the application of the literal rule is likely to result in what appears to the court
to be an obviously absurd result. It should be emphasised, however, that the court is not at liberty to ignore, or replace,
legislative provisions simply on the basis that it considers them absurd; it must fi nd genuine diffi culties before it declines
to use the literal rule in favour of the golden one. As examples, there may be two apparently contradictory meanings to a
particular word used in the statute, or the provision may simply be ambiguous in its effect. In such situations, the golden
rule operates to ensure that preference is given to the meaning that does not result in the provision being an absurdity.
Thus in Adler v George (1964) the defendant was found guilty, under the Offi cial Secrets Act 1920, with obstruction
‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited area, although she had actually carried out the obstruction ‘inside’ the area.
(b) The purposive approach
The purposive approach rejects the limitation of the judges’ search for meaning to a literal construction of the words of
legislation itself. It suggests that the interpretative role of the judge should include, where necessary, the power to look beyond
the words of statute in pursuit of the reason for its enactment, and that meaning should be construed in the light of that purpose
and so as to give it effect. This purposive approach is typical of civil law systems. In these jurisdictions, legislation tends to set
out general principles and leaves the fi ne details to be fi lled in later by the judges who are expected to make decisions in the
furtherance of those general principles.
European Community (EC) legislation tends to be drafted in the continental manner. Its detailed effect, therefore, can only be
determined on the basis of a purposive approach to its interpretation. This requirement, however, runs counter to the literal
approach that is the dominant approach in the English system. The need to interpret such legislation, however, has forced
a change in that approach in relation to Community legislation and even with respect to domestic legislation designed to
implement Community legislation. Thus, in Pickstone v Freemans plc (1988), the House of Lords held that it was permissible,
and indeed necessary, for the court to read words into inadequate domestic legislation in order to give effect to Community
law in relation to provisions relating to equal pay for work of equal value. (For a similar approach, see also the House of Lords’
decision in Litster v Forth Dry Dock (1989) and the decision in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 2) (1996).) However,
it has to recognise that the purposive rule is not particularly modern and has its precursor in a long established rule of statutory
interpretation, namely the mischief rule.
The mischief rule
This rule permits the court to go behind the actual wording of a statute in order to consider the problem that the statute is
supposed to remedy.
In its traditional expression it is limited by being restricted to using previous common law rules in order to decide the operation
of contemporary legislation. Thus in Heydon’s case (1584) it was stated that in making use of the mischief rule the court
should consider what the mischief in the law was which the common law did not adequately deal with and which statute law
had intervened to remedy. Use of the mischief rule may be seen in Corkery v Carpenter (1950), in which a man was found
guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage although he was in fact only in charge of a bicycle.
第20题:
4 (a) ISA 701 Modifications to The Independent Auditor’s Report includes ‘suggested wording of modifying phrases
for use when issuing modified reports’.
Required:
Explain and distinguish between each of the following terms:
(i) ‘qualified opinion’;
(ii) ‘disclaimer of opinion’;
(iii) ‘emphasis of matter paragraph’. (6 marks)
第21题:
Would you like()this afternoon?
Ago shopping with me
Bto go shopping with me
Cto going shopping with me
第22题:
signal her reservations about the accuracy of psychohistorians’ claims for their work
draw attention to a contradiction in the psychohistorians’ method
emphasize the major difference between the traditional historians’ method and that of psychohistorians
disassociate her opinion of the psychohistorians’ claims from her opinion of their method
第23题: