The text seen below is an extract taken from the June 2010 Examiners Report for OCR (MEI) A Level Mathematics.
The Principal Examiners' reports that follow discuss the candidates' performances on the individual modules. There is one matter that should be discussed in a general way as it applies to all the statistics modules. This is in respect of arithmetical accuracy in intermediate working and in quotation of final answers. Please note that these remarks are specific to the statistics modules; they do not necessarily apply to other modules, where it may be natural for somewhat different criteria to be appropriate.
Most candidates are sensible in their arithmetical work, but there is some unease as to exactly what level of accuracy the examiners are expecting. There is no general answer to this! The standard rubric for all the papers sums the situation up by including "final answers should be given to a degree of accuracy appropriate to the context". Three significant figures may often be the norm for this, but this always needs to be considered in the context of the problem in hand. For example, in quoting from Normal tables, some evidence of interpolation is generally expected and so quotation to four decimal places will often be appropriate. But even this does not always apply � quotations of the standard critical points for significance tests such as 1.96, 1.645, 2.576 (maybe even 2.58 � but not 2.57) will commonly suffice.
Talking now in general terms, the examiners always exercise sensible discretion in cases of small variations in the degree of accuracy to which an answer is given. For example, if 3 significant figures are expected (either because of an explicit instruction or because the general context of a problem demands it) but only 2 are given, a candidate is likely to lose an Accuracy mark; but if 4 significant figures are given, there would normally be no penalty. Likewise, answers which are slightly deviant from what is expected in a very minor manner are not penalised (for example, a Normal probability given, after an attempt at interpolation, as 0.6418 whereas 0.6417 was expected). However, there are increasing numbers of cases where candidates give answers which are grossly over- or under-specified, such as insistence that the value of a test statistic is (say) 2.128888446667 merely because that is the value that happens to come off the candidate's calculator. Such gross over-specification indicates a lack of appreciation of the nature of statistical work and, with effect from the January 2011 examinations, will be penalised by withholding of associated Accuracy marks.
Candidates must however always be aware of the dangers of premature rounding if there are several steps in a calculation. If, say, a final answer is desired that is correct to 3 decimal places, this can in no way be guaranteed if only 3 decimal places are used in intermediate steps; indeed, it may not be safe to carry out the intermediate work even to 4 decimal places. The issue of over-specification may arise for the final answer but not for intermediate stages of the working.
It is worth repeating that most candidates act sensibly in all these respects, but it is hoped that this note may help those who are perhaps a little less confident in how to proceed.