In VCE Accounting, many marks are lost not because students lack knowledge, but because they answer a different question from the one that was asked. The most common reason for this is misunderstanding command terms. These words are not filler. They tell you exactly what kind of response the examiner is looking for, how much depth is required, and what will be rewarded.
Across recent Accounting exams, Examiner’s Reports repeatedly show the same pattern. Students demonstrate relevant understanding, sometimes even correct calculations, yet fail to earn full marks because their response does not align with the command term. Understanding these terms is therefore not an optional exam skill. It is central to performance.
Identify and state: accuracy without expansion
Questions that use identify or state are usually worth one or two marks. They reward precision, not explanation.
When a question asks you to identify a source document, an assumption, or a qualitative characteristic, the examiner is looking for the correct term only. Nothing more is required, and nothing more is rewarded.
Examiner’s Reports show that students often overanswer these questions. They define the term, provide examples, or justify their choice. This extra information does not earn marks and sometimes introduces inaccuracies that prevent the response from being marked as fully correct.
For example, when asked to identify a source document, writing “invoice” instead of “purchase invoice” or “cheque” instead of “cheque butt” is enough to lose the mark. Precision matters more than explanation.
Strong students recognise that these questions are low risk only if answered concisely and accurately.
Describe: what happens, not why it happens
The command term describe asks you to outline what occurs. It does not ask for reasoning or justification.
In Accounting exams, describe questions often ask about the effect of a transaction on a report or account. A correct response names the relevant changes clearly and completely.
Examiner’s Reports show that students often underperform on describe questions by naming only one effect when there are several. For example, describing the effect of a sales return on the Income Statement requires reference to both net sales and cost of sales. Students who mention only sales are capped, even if their statement is correct.
Describe questions reward completeness. If more than one component is affected, all must be mentioned to earn full marks.
Explain: effect and reasoning linked together
Explain is one of the most misunderstood command terms in VCE Accounting.
When a question asks you to explain, the examiner expects you to state what changes and why that change occurs. Description alone is not enough. Definitions alone are not enough.
Examiner’s Reports consistently note that students lose marks by explaining processes instead of effects. For example, explaining depreciation by describing how it is calculated does not address the task. A full explanation identifies how depreciation affects expenses and asset values and why this treatment is appropriate over time.
High-scoring responses to explain questions are structured. They name the effect, then link it to the underlying accounting logic.
Justify: appropriateness, not outcome
Justify questions are deliberately discriminating. They test whether students can defend an accounting decision using accounting principles, rather than personal preference or numerical outcome.
A common error noted in Examiner’s Reports is students justifying a method because it produces higher profit or lower expenses. This is not justification. It is outcome-based reasoning, and it is routinely capped.
When asked to justify a depreciation method, a cost-assignment method, or a reporting treatment, full-mark responses explain why the choice best reflects economic reality, improves faithful representation, or aligns with the nature of the business or asset.
Justify questions reward students who understand Accounting as a system of principles rather than a set of rules.
Discuss: balanced consideration using accounting reasoning
Discuss questions require more than listing points. They require comparison, balance, and development.
In Accounting exams, discuss questions often involve financial and ethical considerations or evaluation of alternative options. Examiner’s Reports show that weaker responses tend to list advantages or disadvantages without linking them together or weighing their significance.
High-scoring discuss responses consider more than one perspective, use correct terminology, and avoid absolute conclusions. They show judgement by acknowledging trade-offs rather than asserting a single correct answer.
A discussion that only presents one side, no matter how detailed, is capped.
Evaluate: judgement supported by evidence
Evaluate questions require you to reach a conclusion and support it with accounting reasoning and evidence from the scenario.
Students often confuse evaluate with discuss. The key difference is that evaluate requires a judgement. That judgement must be justified using financial data, accounting principles, or contextual constraints provided in the question.
Examiner’s Reports note that students frequently describe options without concluding, or they conclude without adequate support. Both approaches limit marks.
Strong evaluate responses build logically towards a recommendation and make it clear why that option is more appropriate than alternatives.
Calculate versus record: knowing when the task changes
Another recurring issue is students failing to recognise when a question shifts from calculation to recording.
Calculate questions assess numerical accuracy. Record questions assess classification, structure, account titles, and format. Examiner’s Reports show that students often calculate correctly but then lose marks by recording the figure incorrectly.
Recognising this shift is essential. Calculation skill does not guarantee recording marks.
Why command terms matter so much in Accounting
Accounting exams are designed to reward alignment. Many marks are available for straightforward tasks, but only if students respond in the way the question requires. Misalignment leads to partial credit at best.
Across an entire exam, small misinterpretations of command terms accumulate into significant mark loss. This is why students often feel they “mostly got it right” but still fall short of expectations.
How ATAR STAR trains command-term literacy
ATAR STAR explicitly trains students to read questions through the lens of command terms. Students practise identifying what type of response is required before they begin writing and learn how mark allocation reflects that requirement.
This approach helps strong students eliminate careless losses and helps developing students understand why their answers are being capped, even when the content feels familiar.
In VCE Accounting, knowing what you know is not enough. Knowing how to show it, in the exact way the question demands, is what converts understanding into marks.