Question 63 PA Practice exam explanation.
Hi,
I just wanted to point out that I noticed a small error in the explanation for Question 63 .
In Step 3 of the explanation, it currently states:
“15,780 square feet × 15% gross factor = 18,147 square feet”
However, multiplying 15,780 by 15% equals 2,367 square feet, not 18,147 square feet.
The calculation should instead read either:
“15,780 square feet + 15% gross factor = 18,147 square feet”
or
“15,780 square feet × 1.15 = 18,147 square feet”
The final answer shown is correct, but the wording in the explanation may confuse candidates who are trying to follow the math logic carefully.
Just wanted to point it out in case the explanation can be updated for clarity.
-
I know exactly what you mean and I'm enjoying the level of correct pedantry you demonstrate with the math here. There are quite a few candidates who struggle to make the leap of logic you're making so clearly. For the ARE, it's ultimately a demonstration of the standard of care in your work that meets the Standard of Care for the profession.
Best,
Ralph, the Amber Book Team -
This is a case study where you have a separate document that will outline the client requirement for a 15% gross factor. This is 15% to be added to the net. "15% gross factor (per client space requirements)" is not a number it's a reference to a metric. So there is no error in the explanation.
-
Hi J.,
I agree that the gross factor is a client requirement and that the final answer is correct.
My comment was specifically about the wording of the calculation shown in the explanation. As written, the explanation states:
"15,780 square feet × 15% gross factor = 18,147 square feet"
Mathematically, 15,780 × 15% equals 2,367 square feet, not 18,147 square feet.
I believe the explanation would be clearer if it stated either:
"15,780 square feet + 15% gross factor = 18,147 square feet"
or
"15,780 square feet × 1.15 = 18,147 square feet"
The distinction may seem minor, but many ARE candidates carefully follow each calculation step when learning the methodology behind the solution. My intent was simply to suggest a wording adjustment so that the math shown aligns with the result presented.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Regards,
Derrick
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments