ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title STAT 6003: Statistics for Financial Decisions
Assessment Module 1 - Assessment 1: Short written assessments
Individual/Group Individual
Length NA
Learning Outcomes 1. Analyse and present data graphically using spreadsheet software (Excel).
2. Critically evaluate summary statistics against suitable benchmarks.
3. Apply judgement to select appropriate methods of data analysis drawing on knowledge of regression analysis, probability, probability distributions and sampling distributions.
4. Select and apply a range of data analysis tools to inform problem solving and decision making.
5. 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 nonaccounting 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.
STAT 6003 Assessment 1 Module 1 Page 1 of 7
The board is interested in a comparison analysis of a third country as potential market for our Schmeckt Gut products. You are expected to provide this analysis for a country of your choice. Please find below detailed expectations of the board:
1. Download the data of the World Development Indicators from the World Bank.
2. Using this database, select a country of your choice and compare the country’s:
a. GDP growth rate (%)
b. Inflation rate (%)
c. GDP per Capita (PPP $)
with those of Industria and the Federated Islands (data provided in the Module content).
Provide a table with the data and develop graphs using applicable EXCEL tools.
3. For the same country, use the World Bank Doing Business Indicators and compare the Indicators for the section ‘Paying Taxes’ with that of Industria and the Federated Islands. Provide a table and applicable graphs using EXCEL tools.
4. Based on your analysis, make recommendations to the board, which market the Schmeckt Gut company should target first.

STAT 6003 Assessment 1 Module 1 Page 2 of 7
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 welldeveloped 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 moralethical 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.