Answer it first. Then see the answer.

Reading a model answer teaches almost nothing, because recognising a good answer feels identical to being able to give one. Here the answer stays hidden until you commit to yours, which is the only arrangement that tells you the truth about where you are. Hear the question asked, say your answer out loud, and get the delivery back alongside the substance.

43 questions and 60 follow-ups across accounting, valuation, DCF, M&A, LBO, markets and credit. You mark each answer against the rubric below, which is the same one the marker uses.

1 of 43
Accounting · Level 1

Walk me through the three financial statements.

This browser has no built-in dictation, so this one is typed. Chrome, Edge and Safari let you speak the answer instead, which is worth using: an answer you say out loud is the one you will have to give.

You mark it against the rubric.

How an answer is marked

Correctness is the only criterion that can sink an answer on its own. A confidently wrong answer does not pass because it was well organised, so a weak mark there caps the total whatever the rest looks like.

Correct

Can sink the answer

Whether the substance is right, including the direction and the sign.

Strong
Every claim matches the model answer. Signs, directions and orders of magnitude all hold.
Adequate
The core is right with one slip that does not change the conclusion.
Weak
A claim that reverses the answer: wrong sign, wrong direction, or a mismatched numerator and denominator.

Structured

Whether the answer had a shape someone could follow the first time.

Strong
Signposted and ordered. The listener knew where the answer was going before it got there.
Adequate
The right content in a workable order, with some doubling back.
Weak
A stream. The listener has to assemble the answer themselves.

Explained the why

Whether the answer gave the reason, not only the rule.

Strong
Named the mechanism underneath the rule, so the answer would survive a variation on the question.
Adequate
Stated the rule correctly and gestured at why.
Weak
Recited a rule with no reasoning. Falls apart on the first follow-up.

Specific

Whether numbers, periods and named things appeared where they should.

Strong
Carried real figures, and every figure carried its period or its basis.
Adequate
Some specifics, some adjectives standing in for numbers.
Weak
Adjectives throughout. "Strong growth", "quite high", "a lot of debt".

Honest about the edges

Whether assumptions were stated and uncertainty was named rather than bluffed.

Strong
Stated assumptions out loud, and said plainly where the answer would change or where they were unsure.
Adequate
Made reasonable assumptions without flagging them.
Weak
Bluffed. Asserted something unsupported rather than saying "I would need to check".

When the mock runs out

A mock finds the gaps. Closing them happens somewhere else: the concept behind every question links to its explainer, and every question with a drill behind it links to one. If the same criterion keeps coming back weak, that is the thing to work on, not the next question.