During exercises and the following discussions it has become clear to us that some of you do not answer the questions satisfactory or at least you would not get a full score even if your answer is not wrong.

Let us explain what we mean by drawing a parallel from a math examination with written individual tests. To get a full score you need 3 things:

1) Apply the (or one of the) right method(s)
2) Use it correctly
3) Get the right result

If you only give the right result but do not show why (what calculations you made and how) you will not get a full score. If you use the right method but somehow get the wrong result, you will not get a full score either but at least you get some points.

The examination for this course is quite similar. To give you a full score we need to see your “calculations”, that is: your arguments. You have to base your answers on the arguments in the readings.

If, for instance, you answer a question about responsibilities with a ‘yes, I am responsible’ you do not get a full score. You have to find the right articles in the relevant EU Directive and quote the relevant part, and finally explain why these articles leads you to a ‘yes’.

An example from Examination 2001 is question 8 b), where an answer ‘No.’ would be correct, but would not give a full score, because the argument is missing. A more comprehensive answer would be ‘No, because in article 5 of the Framework Directive (Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work) it is stated that the employer’s responsibilities cannot be affected by the workers’ obligations, so the employer has to ensure that the workers actually use the equipment as well.’