Failed CA P2 twice – anyone have a structured approach that actually worked?

Partial disposals broke me as well. What helped was drawing out the group structure for every question before touching the numbers. Sounds slow but it prevents the ownership percentage errors that cost the most marks.

Past papers under timed conditions is the answer. I failed twice too and the third pass came after I stopped reading theory and just did papers, marked them hard, and wrote out exactly why each wrong answer was wrong. Theory revision on its own doesn't build exam technique.

Also worth checking whether your mock exams are at the right difficulty level. Some prep providers pitch easier questions than the real exam. The official past papers are harder and better practice than most third-party materials.

Ten weeks is enough time if you restructure now. I'd suggest 80% question practice, 20% reviewing specific topics you keep missing. Failing questions and learning from them beats reading notes you already know.

I was in almost the exact same spot last year, 55% on my second attempt and ready to give up. What actually clicked for me was stopping all the topic-based practice and doing question types instead — I'd drill consolidation questions back to back until I could spot the pattern, not just understand the concept. Group accounts especially, you need to see like 30 of them before your brain stops treating each one as a new problem.

Also worth mentioning: I spent time on ca tax planning preparation separately because P2 loves to layer tax into consolidation scenarios and I wasn't connecting those two areas. Once I did that and switched to timed question blocks instead of open-ended study sessions, my third attempt felt completely different. The jump from understanding to applying just takes a specific kind of repetition that most people don't push through.

I was in the exact same spot after my second fail -- 55% and I genuinely thought about just quitting the whole thing. What actually helped me wasn't studying more concepts, it was changing how I practiced questions. I stopped reading the answer after getting one wrong and trying to understand it immediately. Instead I'd write down what I was actually thinking when I chose my wrong answer, because the exam is testing whether you can apply the rules in a specific way, not just recite them.

For group accounts and consolidations specifically, the thing that clicked for me was working through past papers in timed conditions and then going back to trace exactly where my logic broke down. It's tedious but it exposes the gaps in a way that passive review just doesn't. You're probably closer than you think -- going from 52% to 54% means something is working, it's just not enough yet.