EXAMINATION REVIEW FOR THE FIRST PART FOUR TAKEN OCTOBER 2010 .-
are grouped comments for the outcome of the review to be published soon, given the proximity of Recuperatorios examination. In the following students whose examinations were reviewed, they ratified the failing grade. In all cases, essentially similar criticism can be made, mainly due to the lack of knowledge of basic principles to base the system of corporate responsibility, in some cases, in relation to corporate groups, in others regarding unenforceability, to liability or another of the topics included in the syllabus. These students have not demonstrated the minimum level required by the chair, which allows distinctions approaches and topics reasonably questioned as to interconnect them and demonstrate that they understand the background of the institutions under study. In some of the evidence gaps are so large that it is surprising that they have ordered review. In other, we see a good orientation.
1. ID 334480060. Clearly CER student failed. It shows that you do not know the basis of group responsibility system. It does not explain the basis of art. 3rd. Concerns only the legal text. No answer. While describing what is judicial intervention, evidence does not know the essence of corporate conflict. Does not distinguish well as questions regarding precautionary measure. Wrong answers and evidence to ignore a fundamental issue is the allocation performance of the member or controlling company that made it. Omits mention of the obligation to act in acts which are not foreign to the purpose well. Only speaks of representation. No answer to what is asked in connection with art. 60, which it says is irrelevant to the matter that was applicable.
2. DNI 34217727. PSE student Lacks depth and understand more about the subject. Your test is very incomplete.
3. DNI 27416948. Student synthesizes ML Some issues well, but there are many omissions for example, ignores the rules of group responsibility, the problem of art. 3rd. Art. 60. Clearly failed.
4. DNI 23313122. Student GL does not reach the required level, their responses are inadequate and lacking proper development. However, it is well under way and lacks strive to deepen their knowledge structure. If you are dedicated enough, they warn the potential to reach the minimum level.
5. MAT. 8378/89. Your review evidence SG student knowledge of general principles but do not have very well built. It breaks your test primarily because it does not answer the question concerning the art. 60 and what he says about the precautionary measure of art. 91 is equivalent to almost nothing. It then shows a low level in some answers. Not reach the minimum required but is highly targeted. Depends on its effort to reach it.
6. MAT. 2154. CS Student corresponds undoubtedly reprehensible. Lacks the required level. Wrong answer many questions and few answers them very poor.
7. DNI 35078222. AF It shows students aware of some issues, but limited. But their responses reflect that knows no group responsibility, nor the effect "imputation" in the unenforceability, which does not describe, nor know the rudiments of the issue of conflict. Your review evidence that can improve significantly with further study and deepening but is certainly not reach the required level.
Gulminelli
Ricardo Ludovico.
0 comments:
Post a Comment