Statistics for Financial Decisions

 

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Subject Code and Title STAT 6003: Statistics for Financial Decisions
Assessment Module 2 – Assessment 1: Short written assessments
Individual/Group Individual
Length NA
Learning Outcomes

Analyse and present data graphically using spreadsheet software (Excel).

Critically evaluate summary statistics against suitable benchmarks.

Apply judgement to select appropriate methods of data analysis drawing on knowledge of regression analysis, probability, probability distributions and sampling distributions.

Select and apply a range of data analysis tools to inform problem solving and decision making.

Conduct quantitative research both individually and as part of a team and articulate and present findings to a wide range of stakeholders, from accounting and non-accounting backgrounds.

Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday at the end of each Module
Weighting 30% (Total of all written assessments throughout the subject)
Total Marks 100 marks

Context:

The short written module assessments allows you to apply your knowledge on the concepts and ideas discussed during the Module. These assessments will also prepare you for the final report.

 

Instructions:

You are required to apply your knowledge and draw links between the scenario and the learning resources. In your answers, reflect upon and analyse issues of the key discussion points of the module. Your answers should also effectively communicate and demonstrate that key concepts have been reviewed and that you can apply these concepts to the problems posted.

 

Assignment

The board of Schmeckt Gut is interested in opening 5 new stores in each of the countries of Nockaragua, Macronesia and Industria.

The board is interested in your opinion in which districts in each country those stores should be opened.

The research department of Schmeckt Gut has provided the following sales figures which are to assist you in your decision making process; see Table 1.

In more detail, you are asked to provide the board with a performance comparison analysis of the districts within each country (comparison of the districts within each country) and the countries (comparison of the countries) by using appropriate tools and concepts that have been introduced to you in Modules 1 and 2.

The board would like you to investigate if there is a relationship between prices and sales figures in each country? You should provide a visualization to discuss your findings.

Table 1: Schmeckt Gut Energy Bar Sales Figures (January 2016)

Nockaragua

Macronesia

Industria

Store District Price Sales Store District Price Sales Store District Price Sales
1 B 2.00 2128 1 D 1.75 2927 1 A 2.75 5317
2 C 2.00 2445 2 B 1.75 4851 2 A 2.80 6370
3 E 2.00 2062 3 F 2.25 4731 3 A 2.90 4839
4 B 2.15 2407 4 F 2.50 5173 4 A 3.00 6304
5 B 2.25 2075 5 D 2.75 4799 5 A 3.00 5165
6 A 2.25 2293 6 B 2.75 4352 6 B 3.20 5077
7 D 2.30 2210 7 F 3.00 5227 7 B 3.25 5969
8 A 2.40 2987 8 A 1.50 5734 8 B 3.25 5400
9 B 2.50 1823 9 B 1.75 5417 9 B 3.30 5216
10 C 2.50 2698 10 E 2.00 2677 10 B 3.30 3776
11 A 2.50 2458 11 E 2.00 2508 11 B 3.40 4051
12 D 2.70 2970 12 F 2.00 5950 12 C 3.40 4206
13 D 2.75 3081 13 B 2.25 3675 13 C 3.50 3886
14 A 2.75 2827 14 F 2.25 3859 14 D 3.50 4394
15 B 2.80 3291 15 E 2.50 5820 15 D 3.50 4031
16 D 3.00 3046 16 G 2.50 4119 16 D 3.50 4206
17 C 3.00 3156 17 G 3.00 5373 17 E 3.75 3708
18 A 3.00 2846 18 F 3.00 5600 18 E 3.75 3275
19 B 3.25 3367 19 E 3.00 3118 19 F 3.75 3054
20 E 3.25 2969 20 F 2.75 3284 20 G 3.75 3976
21 A 3.25 3037 21 F 3.50 5178 21 G 4.00 3713
22 E 3.50 4626 22 F 3.75 3377 22 G 4.00 3679
23 B 3.50 4494 23 C 3.25 3253 23 G 4.00 2811
24 E 3.50 4395 24 B 3.50 2276 24 G 4.00 2360
25 A 3.75 4069 25 F 3.30 3118 25 G 4.25 2655
26 D 3.75 4974 26 B 3.45 3710 26 H 4.50 2132
27 A 4.00 4575 27 D 3.75 2302 27 H 4.50 2280
28 C 4.00 4649 28 B 4.00 2595 28 H 4.50 2346
29 B 4.00 3947 29 B 3.00 5539 29 H 4.75 2047
30 C 4.50 4010 30 D 2.40 5701 30 H 5.00 2346
31 F 2.75 5697 31 A 2.90 5875
32 B 2.60 6231 32 F 3.50 3433
33 D 2.40 6765 33 F 3.60 3221
34 B 2.30 7299 34 G 4.00 2891
35 B 2.15 7833 35 F 3.75 3256
36 A 3.00 6365
37 B 3.25 3765
38 F 3.75 3462
39 D 3.50 4001
40 B 3.30 3899

 

Learning Rubrics

Assessment Attributes

Fail (Unacceptable)

Pass
(Functional)

Credit
(Proficient)

Distinction
(Advanced)

High Distinction
(Exceptional)

Grade Description (Grading Scheme)

Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the course, insufficient understanding of the course content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development.

Evidence of satisfactory achievement of course learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills.

Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the course or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the course. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills.

Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills.

Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication skills.
Content, Audience and Purpose Does not meet minimum standard

Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Meets minimum standard

Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment

Moves beyond minimum standard

Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Exceeds minimum standard

Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence

Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.

Knowledge and understanding Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge

Key components of the assignment are not addressed.

Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.

Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.

Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.

Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.

Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.

Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.

Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.

A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.

Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning.

Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment.

Makes assertions that are not justified.

Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment.

Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion.

Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ points of view are acknowledged.

Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion.

Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment.

Justifies any conclusions reached with well-developed arguments.

Specific position (perspective or argument) is presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Limits of position are acknowledged.

Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments.

Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Limited synthesis and analysis.

Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis.

Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.

Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.

Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.

Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.

Ethico moral reasoning (recognises ethical and moral issues within a discipline and is able to reason based on these principles) Difficulty in formulating own opinion and lack of recognition of ethical principles and competing interests.

Does not clearly demonstrate moral-ethical reasoning.

Difficulty in justifying conclusions based on moral-ethical principles but recognises different viewpoints. Conclusions are justified based on moral-ethical principles. Formulates and justifies conclusions based on moral-ethical principles.

Can recognise the competing interests in arguments and identify ethical issues embodied in them.

Uses ethical principles to identify competing interests and views.

Sophisticated understanding of the ethical and moral positions.

Well-articulated viewpoint based on moral-ethical reasoning.

Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar.

Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas.

There are mistakes in using the APA style.

Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction.

Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.

There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary).

Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas.

There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Is very well-written and adheres to the academic genre.

Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading

There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre.

Demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading

There are no mistakes in using the APA Style.

Effective communication

 

Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.

No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.

Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant.

Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.

Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.

Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance.

Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.

The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow.

Effective use of presentation aids.

Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.

Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity.

Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used.

Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.

Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity

Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.