RBC - Revision history

107.179.141.183: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-17T02:12:48Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

107.179.141.183: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-17T02:12:15Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

107.179.141.183: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-17T02:06:34Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T01:03:42Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T01:03:12Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T01:01:07Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T01:00:26Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T00:55:07Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T00:54:35Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

45.72.145.12: /* Week 2: Day 5 (R5) */

2018-12-10T00:52:35Z

‎Week 2: Day 5 (R5)

@@ Line 648: / Line 648: @@
 Unfortunately there have been exam problems that test the details for calculating R<sub>5</sub>. Note however that these problems were from '''2018''', '''2014''' and '''2012'''. The syllabus has changed since 2012 and the reference to the ''claims-made'' discount in that problem is no longer relevant. Alice's advice is to <u>ignore</u> the problem from '''2012''' since it's very similar to the 2014 problem.
-Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1_.28Another_Exam_Problem.29 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. I was guessing that the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> wouldn't show up again, but then it did in <span style="color: red;">'''(2018.Spring)'''</span>. Anyway let's go over this problem first:
+Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1_.28Another_Exam_Problem.29 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. I was guessing that the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> wouldn't show up again, but then they did in <span style="color: red;">'''(2018.Spring)'''</span>. Anyway let's go over this problem first:
 : [https://www.battleacts6us.ca/pdf/Exam_(2014_2-Fall)/(2014_2-Fall)_(18).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style="color: red;">'''(2014.Fall #18)'''</span>

@@ Line 646: / Line 646: @@
 ===Week 2: Day 5 (R<sub>5</sub>)===
-Unfortunately there have been exam problems that test the details for calculating R<sub>5</sub>. Note however that these problems were from '''2014''' and '''2012'''. The syllabus has changed since 2012 and the reference to the ''claims-made'' discount in that problem is no longer relevant. Alice's advice is to <u>ignore</u> the problem from '''2012''' since it's very similar to the 2014 problem.
+Unfortunately there have been exam problems that test the details for calculating R<sub>5</sub>. Note however that these problems were from '''2018''', '''2014''' and '''2012'''. The syllabus has changed since 2012 and the reference to the ''claims-made'' discount in that problem is no longer relevant. Alice's advice is to <u>ignore</u> the problem from '''2012''' since it's very similar to the 2014 problem.
-Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1_.28Another_Exam_Problem.29 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. If you are pressed for time, the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> are something you could consider skipping. It's a judgment call. If you do want to cover it, here is the link to the question & answer from the examiner's report:
+Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1_.28Another_Exam_Problem.29 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. I was guessing that the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> wouldn't show up again, but then it did in <span style="color: red;">'''(2018.Spring)'''</span>. Anyway let's go over this problem first:
 : [https://www.battleacts6us.ca/pdf/Exam_(2014_2-Fall)/(2014_2-Fall)_(18).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style="color: red;">'''(2014.Fall #18)'''</span>

@@ Line 648: / Line 648: @@
 Unfortunately there have been exam problems that test the details for calculating R<sub>5</sub>. Note however that these problems were from '''2014''' and '''2012'''. The syllabus has changed since 2012 and the reference to the ''claims-made'' discount in that problem is no longer relevant. Alice's advice is to <u>ignore</u> the problem from '''2012''' since it's very similar to the 2014 problem.
-Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. If you are pressed for time, the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> are something you could consider skipping. It's a judgment call. If you do want to cover it, here is the link to the question & answer from the examiner's report:
+Recall the comment I made in [[RBC#Week_2:_Day_1_.28Another_Exam_Problem.29 | Week 2: Day 1]] - that recent RBC exam questions are <u>less</u> difficult/detailed than problems from 2015 & prior. If you are pressed for time, the detailed calculations for R<sub>5</sub> are something you could consider skipping. It's a judgment call. If you do want to cover it, here is the link to the question & answer from the examiner's report:
 : [https://www.battleacts6us.ca/pdf/Exam_(2014_2-Fall)/(2014_2-Fall)_(18).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style="color: red;">'''(2014.Fall #18)'''</span>

@@ Line 706: / Line 706: @@
 ::: = <span style="color: red;>'''(excess growth)'''</span> x 0.225 x NWP
 ::: = (23.3% &ndash; 10%) x 0.225 x 191,400
-::: = '''5,742''' <== final answer
+::: = '''5,742'''
 And here's the mini BattleQuiz for the Alice's last 3 "days":

@@ Line 703: / Line 703: @@
 ::: = 23.3%
-:: <span style="color: red;>'''(excess growth)'''</span>
+:: excess growth charge
-::: = 23.3% x 0.225 x 191,400
+::: = <span style="color: red;>'''(excess growth)'''</span> x 0.225 x NWP
-::: = 10,048
+::: = (23.3% &ndash; 10%) x 0.225 x 191,400
 And here's the mini BattleQuiz for the Alice's last 3 "days":

@@ Line 699: / Line 699: @@
 :: <span style="color: brown;">'''(average growth over last 3 years)'''</span>
 ::: = average (120000/100000 - 1 , 174000/120000 - 1, 191400/174000 - 1)
-::: = average (20%, 45%, 10%) &nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp: ''(but the growth must be capped at 40%
+::: = average (20%, 45%, 10%) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ''(but the growth must be capped at 40%
 ::: ~ average (20%, 40%, 10%)
 ::: = 23.3%

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 10 December 2018
Line 692:		Line 692:
	:: Calculate the NWP excess growth charge.		:: Calculate the NWP excess growth charge.

		+	:{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\| style="background-color: green; color: white; border: solid; border-width: 2px; border-radius: 10px;" \| '''Pop Quiz Answers!    :-D'''
		+	\|}
		+
		+	:: <span style="color: brown;">'''(average growth over last 3 years)'''</span>
		+	::: = average (120000/100000 - 1 , 174000/120000 - 1, 191400/174000 - 1)
		+	::: = average (20%, 45%, 10%) &nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp: ''(but the growth must be capped at 40%
		+	::: ~ average (20%, 40%, 10%)
		+	::: = 23.3%
		+
		+	:: <span style="color: red;>'''(excess growth)'''</span>
		+	::: = 23.3% x 0.225 x 191,400
		+	::: = 10,048

	And here's the mini BattleQuiz for the Alice's last 3 "days":		And here's the mini BattleQuiz for the Alice's last 3 "days":

@@ Line 675: / Line 675: @@
 |}
-: Given:
+:: Given:
-::{| class="wikitable"
+:::{| class="wikitable"
 |-
 ! year !! NWP
@@ Line 690: / Line 690: @@
 |}
-: Calculate the NWP excess growth charge.
+:: Calculate the NWP excess growth charge.

@@ Line 670: / Line 670: @@
 :: ==> <span style="color: brown;">'''(average growth over last 3 years)'''</span> is capped at 40% for each year
-Suppose we're given the following information:
+:{| class="wikitable"
-:{| class="wikitable"
+: Given:
 |-
 ! year !! NWP
 || 2016 || 100,000
 || 2017 || 120,000
 || 2018 || 174,000
 || 2019 || 191,400
 |}