FW: Syllabus

Dan Perry ( dperry@unigard.com )
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 08:16:56 -0700

I think the only thing we know for sure is that if a case is just only
mentioned (in other words, no details of what happened are provided), =
then
that would not be tested. Otherwise, it seems like anything is fair =
game. I
was kind of going by the "half a page" rule of thumb, in that if the
write-up of the case lasted more than a half a page, then I would write =
down
something about that. However, that may be overkill.
=A0
Bottom line is that anything is fair game other than the cases that are =
only
mentioned.
=A0
-----Original Message-----
From: Eva Paxhia [mailto:corpact@eos.net]=20
Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 5:55 AM
To: Sylvain Renaud; Study Group
Subject: Re: Syllabus

Someone asksed this questions last year too.=A0 I think the study group
concluded that that statement in the syllabus is irrelevant.=A0 Any =
case is
fair game.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sylvain Renaud < srenaud@cgocable.ca <mailto:srenaud@cgocable.ca> =
>
To: Study Group < studygroup8@lists.casact.org
<mailto:studygroup8@lists.casact.org> >
Date: Saturday, March 27, 1999 8:36 PM
Subject: Syllabus

I have a question about the Syllabus.
=A0
After some readings the syllabus says :"Candidates will not be tested =
on
details of cases mentioned only briefly, but will be responsible for
knowledge of cases treated in some depth".=A0 (Waddams, Mintel)
=A0
What is the difference between a case mentioned only briefly and a case
treated in some depth?
=A0
Thanks
=A0
Sylvain Renaud