Myanmar DA Part I Module II common mistakes
Myanmar DA Part I Module II · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Preparing the final accounts straight from the cash book and leaving out year-end adjustments - no accruals, prepayments, closing inventory, depreciation or bad-debt write-off - so the reported profit and the balance sheet totals are both wrong even though every individual double entry is correct.
Candidates rehearse double entry on cash transactions during revision but run out of time in the exam and treat the trial balance as the finished product, forgetting that the trial balance is only the starting point for the period-end adjustments.
What to do instead
Work to a fixed closing checklist before touching the profit and loss account: (1) closing inventory, (2) accrued expenses, (3) prepaid expenses, (4) accrued income, (5) depreciation for the full period, (6) bad debts and allowance for receivables, (7) drawings and interest on capital for a sole trader. Tick each item off and re-extract an adjusted trial balance before drafting the statements.
Classifying costs by their description rather than their effect on the asset: debiting carriage inwards, import duty, installation and testing costs of a new machine to carriage, duty or repairs accounts instead of capitalising them, and conversely capitalising a routine service or a repaint of a building.
Textbook examples show a clean invoice price, so candidates never learn the rule that the cost of an asset includes everything needed to bring it to its present location and working condition, and they default to whatever expense account the wording resembles.
What to do instead
Apply a two-question test to every cost: does it bring a new non-current asset into existence or working condition, and will the benefit last more than one accounting period? If yes to both, capitalise; if it merely maintains existing capacity, expense it. Learn the standard capitalisable list cold: purchase price, non-refundable duty, freight inwards, installation, testing, and directly attributable professional fees.
Treating successive trade discounts as additive (10% then 10% written up as 20% off) and using mark-up and margin interchangeably when computing selling price or cost price.
Percentage questions are read quickly under time pressure, and the everyday phrase 'less 10% and 10%' sounds like 20%; margin and mark-up also look like synonyms in ordinary language even though they have different denominators.
What to do instead
Convert every percentage change into a multiplier and chain them: two successive 10% discounts give 0.90 × 0.90 = 0.81, i.e. 19% off, not 20%. Fix the definitions in writing at the start of any pricing question: margin = profit ÷ selling price, mark-up = profit ÷ cost, so a 25% mark-up equals a 20% margin. Always state which base you are applying the percentage to before you calculate.
Adding the probabilities of two events without checking whether they can occur together (writing P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) for non-mutually-exclusive events), and treating 'independent' as a synonym for 'mutually exclusive'.
The two ideas are taught in the same week and both involve the word 'or'; candidates memorise the addition formula without the subtraction term and never draw a diagram to test overlap.
What to do instead
Draw a two-circle Venn diagram or a quick 2×2 table before computing anything. Use P(A∪B) = P(A) + P(B) − P(A∩B) and only drop the last term when the question explicitly says the events cannot occur together. For independence, test P(A∩B) = P(A) × P(B); a pair of events with non-zero probability that are mutually exclusive is automatically not independent.
Computing the mean, median or standard deviation of grouped data using class limits instead of class boundaries, or dividing the standard deviation by n when the question describes a sample rather than a population.
The formulae are memorised from ungrouped examples, so the extra step of adjusting limits by 0.5 (or by the size of the gap) is skipped, and the n versus n−1 distinction is treated as a trivial detail rather than a definitional one.
What to do instead
Before calculating, rewrite the table with true class boundaries and midpoints in separate columns - never work from the printed limits. Write 'population' or 'sample' at the top of your answer and use n for a population and n−1 for a sample standard deviation, saying so explicitly in the working so the marker can see the choice was deliberate.
Describing a change in price as 'a shift in the demand curve', or describing a change in income, tastes or the price of a related good as 'a movement along the demand curve'.
Both situations are drawn as a change in the quantity bought, so candidates pick whichever phrase comes to mind rather than identifying which variable actually changed.
What to do instead
Ask one question first: did the good's own price change, or did something else change? Own price → movement along the existing curve (expansion or contraction). Any other determinant - income, tastes, prices of substitutes or complements, population, expectations - → the whole curve shifts (increase or decrease). Name the determinant explicitly in your answer, not just the direction.
Using GDP at market price and GDP at factor cost interchangeably, and treating nominal (money) GDP growth as if it measured real output growth, or confusing the balance of trade with the balance of payments.
The aggregates are learnt as a list of acronyms without the one-line definitions that separate them, and exam questions that supply both a price rise and an output rise are answered with nominal figures.
What to do instead
Fix the identities before the exam: GDP at factor cost = GDP at market price − indirect taxes + subsidies; real GDP = nominal GDP deflated by the price index; the balance of trade covers goods only, while the balance of payments covers goods, services, income and transfers. In any question giving both prices and quantities, compute real GDP using base-year prices and show the deflation step.
Treating a shop display, a newspaper advertisement or a tender notice as an offer, so that the customer's 'acceptance' is analysed as forming a contract, when the law treats these as invitations to treat.
The everyday meaning of 'offer' is much wider than the legal meaning, and candidates answer from intuition instead of recalling the decided categories.
What to do instead
Memorise the invitation-to-treat list as a set: displays of goods, advertisements, catalogues and price lists, auction calls for bids, invitations to tender, and mere statements of price. Then locate the real offer - usually the customer presenting goods at the till, or the tenderer's bid - and check whether acceptance was communicated before analysing consideration.
Using 'condition' and 'warranty' as if they were interchangeable in a sale-of-goods problem, so that the buyer of goods with a minor defect is advised to reject the goods outright, or a buyer facing a fundamental breach is advised only to claim damages.
Both are terms in the contract that have been breached, so the difference is invisible unless the candidate remembers that the distinction turns on the effect of the breach on the substance of the contract.
What to do instead
State the test first: a condition goes to the root of the contract, so breach allows rejection and damages; a warranty is collateral, so breach gives damages only. Apply the statutory implied terms to each set of facts, then classify the term before choosing the remedy, and mention the buyer's right to treat a breach of condition as a breach of warranty where the goods have already been accepted.
Writing business letters and reports that ignore the required conventions - a mismatched salutation and complimentary close ('Dear Sir' with 'Yours sincerely'), no subject line or reference, a memorandum written with letter conventions, and contractions or slang in a formal report.
Candidates translate from everyday messaging habits and have never been shown that salutation and close are paired, or that letter, memo and report formats are not interchangeable.
What to do instead
Learn the pairings and layout as a template you can reproduce in 30 seconds: 'Dear Sir/Madam' → 'Yours faithfully'; 'Dear Mr/Ms [name]' → 'Yours sincerely'; memo = To/From/Date/Subject with no salutation; report = title, terms of reference, findings, conclusions, recommendations. In the final two minutes, check register: expand every contraction, remove slang, and confirm the subject line names the purpose of the message.