Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Efficient Markets and Anomalies

CISI means Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment. CWM means Chartered Wealth Manager, and this page is for the Portfolio Construction Theory paper. Use this focused CISI CWM Portfolio Construction page as a short practice test for Efficient Markets and Anomalies. The items are original Finance Prep sample exam questions built for scenario-based practice, not trivia, puzzle questions, official CISI questions, copied live-exam content, or exam dumps.

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These are original Finance Prep practice questions aligned to this topic area. They are not official CISI questions, copied live-exam content, or exam dumps. Use them to preview question style and explanation depth before continuing with topic drills, mixed sets, and timed mock exams in Finance Prep.

Question 1

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A UK discretionary portfolio committee is reviewing an equity allocation for a taxable private-client portfolio.

Client and current portfolio:

• £1.8 million taxable portfolio outside wrappers, with moderate capacity for loss.
• Strategic allocation uses a low-cost global equity index fund as the core growth exposure.
• The mandate permits active funds, but not leverage or short selling.

Manager proposal:

• Replace 35% of the global equity index holding with a fund targeting value, small-cap and post-earnings-announcement-drift anomalies.
• Evidence supplied is mainly a 25-year gross back-test; the strongest results come from less liquid small-cap shares.
• Live record is three years, with 0.4% annualised gross excess return, 7% tracking error, 150% annual turnover, and higher expected transaction costs and taxable disposals than the index fund.

Which committee response best evaluates the anomaly evidence for this portfolio?

• A. Use equity futures to lever the anomaly exposure so that the expected alpha is large enough to offset tax and transaction costs.
• B. Reject the fund solely because efficient markets theory means published anomalies cannot exist in observed market data.
• C. Treat the anomalies as uncertain evidence, require net-of-cost and out-of-sample support, and consider only a limited risk-budgeted tilt if it fits the client constraints.
• D. Replace the proposed 35% allocation immediately because a long back-test proves that the market is inefficient and the anomaly will persist.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Evidence on market anomalies should be evaluated sceptically, not accepted or dismissed automatically. A back-test can be affected by data mining, survivorship bias, changing market structure and publication effects. Even where an anomaly has an economic or behavioural basis, it may be difficult to exploit once fees, dealing spreads, market impact, turnover, tax, capacity and tracking error are considered. In this case, the live record is short, the excess return is gross and modest, and the strategy relies partly on less liquid small-cap shares. The client also has a taxable portfolio and a mandate that excludes leverage. A portfolio-construction response should therefore focus on robustness, implementation and suitability, with any exposure sized within a clear risk budget rather than treated as a guaranteed source of alpha.

• A long gross back-test is not enough to justify a large replacement of the core equity allocation.
• Efficient markets theory does not require ignoring all anomaly evidence; it calls for careful testing of whether abnormal returns can be captured.
• Levering the exposure breaches the mandate and increases risk rather than solving persistence, cost or tax concerns.
• The short live record and high turnover weaken, rather than confirm, the case for a large taxable allocation.

This response recognises that anomaly evidence may be real but not necessarily persistent, exploitable, or suitable after costs, tax, capacity and tracking-error constraints.

Question 2

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A wealth manager is reviewing a rules-based strategy that buys shares immediately after a positive earnings surprise and holds them for three months. The committee asks whether the back-test is more consistent with a market anomaly linked to investor behaviour than with an immediately efficient price response.

For this review, approximate cumulative abnormal return as the sum of each period’s basket return less the market return.

Which interpretation is most appropriate?

• A. A 5.2% positive cumulative abnormal return, consistent with a calendar anomaly caused by tax-loss selling.
• B. A 3.4% positive cumulative abnormal return, consistent with post-earnings announcement drift linked to investor underreaction or anchoring.
• C. A 3.4% negative cumulative abnormal return, consistent with overreaction followed by reversal.
• D. A 1.5% positive cumulative abnormal return, consistent only with a fully immediate semi-strong efficient response.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Post-earnings announcement drift is an anomaly in which prices continue to move in the direction of an earnings surprise after the information is public. Here, the basket outperforms the market in every period: 1.5%, 0.8%, 0.7%, and 0.4%. The approximate cumulative abnormal return is therefore 3.4%. A behavioural interpretation is that investors may anchor on prior expectations, update beliefs too slowly, or underreact to new earnings information. That link is different from a pure overreaction story, where an excessive initial move would more naturally be followed by reversal, and it is not simply a calendar effect.

• Treating the result as negative reverses the sign of every excess return.
• Adding only the basket returns gives 5.2%, but the anomaly evidence requires comparison with the market return.
• Using only the announcement-day excess return ignores the continued abnormal performance over the following months.

The abnormal returns sum to 1.5% + 0.8% + 0.7% + 0.4% = 3.4%, indicating gradual price adjustment after public news.

Question 3

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A UK-based discretionary portfolio committee is reviewing the listed equity sleeve for a client. The strategic asset allocation and equity benchmark are unchanged.

Client constraints:

• Long-term real growth, but no large unintended active bets.
• Expected tracking error versus the client equity benchmark must remain below 2% at total equity level.
• Costs and taxable turnover matter because most assets are held in a general investment account.
• No leverage, short selling, or derivative overlays for return enhancement.

Evidence reviewed:

• Developed large-cap equity markets are highly researched; after-fee active outperformance has weak persistence.
• The current US and UK large-cap active funds have active share below 40%, fees around 0.80%, and no significant seven-year after-fee alpha versus their indices.
• The global small-company universe is less researched; anomalies may be exploitable, but capacity, charges, liquidity, and turnover must be monitored.
• A global small-company manager has a repeatable process, active share above 80%, positive after-fee alpha over a full cycle, and capacity limits; a capped satellite would keep total equity tracking error within the mandate.

Which implementation approach is best supported by the evidence and constraints?

• A. Switch the whole equity sleeve to passive capitalisation-weighted index funds because market efficiency evidence means no active mandate can be justified.
• B. Replace the developed large-cap active core with low-cost index funds and retain a capped active global small-company satellite subject to capacity, turnover, and tracking-error controls.
• C. Allocate the equity sleeve mainly to high-turnover anomaly products to harvest factor premia across all markets.
• D. Retain the current large-cap active funds because low active share reduces tracking error while still giving the client benchmark-like participation.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Efficient market evidence supports implementation choices rather than a blanket rule. In highly researched developed large-cap markets, weak persistence of after-fee active returns and low active share make expensive active funds difficult to justify, especially for a taxable client focused on costs and limited active risk. Low-cost index funds are a better core implementation. However, the evidence does not say all markets are equally efficient. The less researched small-company universe, combined with a manager showing a repeatable process, high active share, positive after-fee alpha over a full cycle, and capacity discipline, can justify a modest active satellite. The cap is essential because the client has a tracking-error limit and tax-sensitive turnover constraints.

• Low active share in expensive large-cap active funds suggests closet indexing, not a strong source of after-fee alpha.
• A fully passive equity sleeve is too absolute because the small-company evidence supports a controlled active allocation within the mandate.
• High-turnover anomaly products ignore the client’s taxable position, capacity concerns, and tracking-error discipline.

This aligns passive implementation with the most efficient markets while allowing a controlled active satellite where the evidence and mandate support it.

Question 4

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A portfolio committee is choosing how to implement two equity sleeves for a UK private client.

Market-efficiency view:

• Developed large-cap equities: prices quickly reflect public information, so active skill is unlikely to survive costs.
• Emerging-market small-cap equities: coverage is thinner, so active skill may be exploitable if expected net active value added is positive.

The committee will use an active manager only where expected annual net active value added is positive:

Expected annual net active value added = allocation × (forecast gross active alpha - incremental active cost)

Which implementation and total equity index exposure are most consistent with the committee’s view and rule?

• A. Use an index fund for developed large-cap and an active manager for emerging-market small-cap; total index exposure is £650,000.
• B. Use active managers for both sleeves; total index exposure is £0.
• C. Use an active manager for developed large-cap and an index fund for emerging-market small-cap; total index exposure is £250,000.
• D. Use index funds for both sleeves; total index exposure is £900,000.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: The implementation should follow both the market-efficiency view and the net-of-cost calculation. For developed large-cap, \(650,000 \times (0.30\% - 0.55\%) = -1,625\), so the expected annual net active value added is -£1,625. That efficient sleeve should be indexed. For emerging-market small-cap, \(250,000 \times (1.60\% - 0.80\%) = 2,000\), so the expected annual net active value added is +£2,000. Active management is consistent there. A nuanced efficient-market view does not require indexing every market; it supports low-cost index exposure where net alpha is unlikely, and active exposure only where exploitable inefficiency is plausible after costs.

• Positive gross alpha alone is insufficient; developed large-cap becomes negative once incremental active cost is included.
• Indexing both sleeves ignores the stated view that emerging-market small-cap may offer exploitable inefficiency after costs.
• Reversing the implementation conflicts with the calculation and the efficiency view: the developed sleeve should be indexed, not actively managed.

Developed large-cap has negative expected net active value added, while emerging-market small-cap has positive expected net active value added.

Question 5

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A discretionary portfolio committee is reviewing a UK client’s moderate-growth portfolio after a year in which the portfolio slightly lagged its benchmark.

Client and mandate:

• 12-year investment horizon; no near-term liquidity need.
• Strategic equity allocation: 55%, with a permitted range of 50% to 60%.
• Current equity allocation: 56%.
• Portfolio volatility remains within the agreed risk range.

Review extract:

• The active global equity sleeve underperformed its benchmark by 1.4% over 12 months.
• Five-year annualised relative return is close to zero and within the expected tracking-error range.
• Attribution shows the main drag was an underweight to a small number of very large growth stocks; stock selection was broadly neutral.
• No change has been found in the manager’s process, team, charges, liquidity, or style discipline.
• A proposed alternative is a thematic equity ETF whose recent performance is strong, but the evidence presented is mainly a six-month return comparison.

Which portfolio decision is best supported by the evidence?

• A. Reduce the total equity allocation below its strategic range until the active manager has recovered the 12-month underperformance.
• B. Replace the active sleeve immediately with a passive fund because efficient markets mean active management cannot ever add value.
• C. Retain the current strategic allocation and manager exposure, while monitoring for process drift, persistent unexplained underperformance, or a risk-range breach.
• D. Switch part of the global equity allocation into the thematic ETF because recent price momentum is evidence of a persistent anomaly.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Monitoring is supported when adverse evidence is limited, explainable, and still consistent with the portfolio mandate. Here, the client’s horizon and risk profile have not changed, the equity weight is within the agreed strategic range, and volatility remains within tolerance. The active sleeve’s 12-month underperformance is modest, sits within expected tracking error, and is largely explained by a factor or market-leadership effect rather than a breakdown in stock selection or process. Under market-efficiency assumptions, a short period of strong thematic performance is weak evidence for changing allocation, especially without robust out-of-sample support. A watch-and-review approach preserves discipline while setting clear triggers for future action.

• Recent thematic performance is not enough to infer a durable exploitable anomaly.
• Cutting equity below the strategic range would ignore the client’s unchanged objectives and agreed risk budget.
• Efficient markets weaken confidence in easy alpha, but they do not require automatic removal of every active exposure without mandate or evidence concerns.

The evidence shows no mandate breach, risk breach, or robust signal that would justify an immediate allocation change.

Question 6

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

An investment committee is assessing a global equity manager that has marketed one-year outperformance as evidence of repeatable skill.

The committee note states:

Momentum has been one of the more persistent documented anomalies, but evidence of repeatable top-quartile discretionary fund-manager performance is weak.

For this review, the committee uses:

Factor-adjusted net alpha = gross manager return - ongoing charge - [benchmark return + (benchmark-relative momentum loading × momentum factor premium)].

Ignore tax, transaction costs and other factor exposures. Which conclusion is most appropriate?

• A. Net alpha is -0.8%; use the evidence, if at all, as a low-cost systematic momentum tilt rather than as proof of this manager’s persistence.
• B. Net alpha is +2.0%; the manager’s benchmark outperformance is enough to evidence persistent discretionary skill.
• C. Net alpha is +0.2%; the gross factor-adjusted result proves the manager can persistently exploit the anomaly.
• D. Net alpha is -0.8%; the only consistent response is to avoid momentum exposure and hold a purely market-cap-weighted portfolio.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Calculate the net manager return first: 9.0% - 1.0% = 8.0%. The return expected from the benchmark plus the manager’s momentum exposure is 6.0% + (0.70 × 4.0%) = 8.8%. Factor-adjusted net alpha is therefore -0.8%. The result does not evidence persistent skill after allowing for a known style exposure and charges. A documented anomaly such as momentum may support a systematic factor or quantitative tilt where suitable, but it does not automatically justify hiring a discretionary active manager on short-period outperformance. The key distinction is between the possible existence of a factor premium and the separate, harder claim that a named manager can capture it persistently after costs.

• Gross benchmark outperformance alone is incomplete because it ignores both the fee and the return expected from momentum exposure.
• Treating a documented anomaly as proof of a named manager’s skill confuses factor exposure with manager persistence.
• Rejecting all momentum exposure overstates the implication; a disciplined factor process may be appropriate even where manager persistence is weak.

The calculation gives -0.8%, so the manager’s return is better interpreted as paid-for momentum exposure than as evidence of repeatable skill.

Question 7

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A wealth manager is reviewing a discretionary portfolio for a UK private client.

Client and mandate:

• Moderate risk profile, 10-year horizon, and no near-term withdrawal requirement.
• Strategic allocation: 60% developed-market equities, 30% investment-grade global bonds hedged to sterling, and 10% cash/short gilts.
• Responsible-investment preference: avoid thermal coal and use a Paris-aligned developed-equity exposure where practicable.
• Current equity sleeve is a low-cost fund tracking an ESG-screened developed-market index and has tracked that index closely after modest fees.
• The whole portfolio underperformed a peer-group “balanced fund” average over the last 12 months.
• An active global large-cap fund is being proposed because it was top quartile over the same 12 months; its OCF and tracking error are materially higher, and there is no evidence of persistent after-fee alpha.

Which response is the single best application of efficient-market reasoning to the benchmark, fund selection, and review decision?

• A. Keep the passive equity fund but judge it mainly against the peer-group balanced average, because a diversified client should be compared with the broadest available peer universe.
• B. Set CPI plus a target return as the only benchmark and review the portfolio against absolute return, because market indices are unsuitable when responsible-investment screens are used.
• C. Use an SAA-weighted composite benchmark that reflects the ESG-screened equity universe, hedged bond exposure and cash allocation; retain the low-cost passive equity approach unless stronger after-fee skill evidence emerges.
• D. Switch the equity sleeve to the one-year top-quartile active fund and keep the peer-group benchmark, because recent rankings are the best evidence of manager skill in efficient markets.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Efficient-market reasoning raises the hurdle for paying active fees in highly researched markets such as developed large-cap equities. It does not prove that active management can never work, but recent top-quartile performance alone is weak evidence of repeatable skill, especially before considering higher charges and tracking error. The review benchmark should be investable and consistent with the client’s strategic asset allocation, currency treatment, and responsible-investment constraints. A composite benchmark using the relevant ESG-screened equity index, sterling-hedged bond benchmark, and cash/short-gilt measure is more diagnostic than a broad peer group. Performance should then be assessed over an agreed horizon on an after-fee, risk-aware basis.

• One-year peer ranking may reflect style exposure, luck, or a favourable market phase rather than persistent manager skill.
• CPI-plus can help express a client outcome objective, but it does not isolate whether asset allocation or fund implementation has worked.
• Peer groups are often heterogeneous and may not match the client’s SAA, currency hedging, ESG constraints, or risk budget.

It aligns review with the investable policy portfolio and recognises that short-run peer ranking is weak evidence of exploitable skill after costs in well-researched developed equity markets.

Question 8

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

An investment committee is reviewing whether to add an active global equity fund to a core portfolio. The consultant uses semi-strong market efficiency as a working assumption, so claims of skill, anomaly persistence, or market timing need evidence beyond a short, noisy record.

Three-year review data:

For this review, information ratio equals annualised active return divided by annualised tracking error.

Which committee statement is an unsupported inference from these figures?

• A. The data justify further due diligence, but do not by themselves establish anomaly persistence or durable alpha.
• B. The beta pattern does not provide evidence of successful market timing because beta was almost the same before up and down benchmark months.
• C. The fund’s annualised active return was about 1.2%, giving an information ratio of about 0.20.
• D. The record proves persistent manager skill because the information ratio is about 0.20 and the fund beat the benchmark in 19 of 36 months.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Annualised active return is 9.0% minus 7.8%, or 1.2%. The information ratio is therefore \(1.2\% / 6.0\% = 0.20\). That is a modest result and, over only 36 months, is not strong evidence that the manager has persistent skill rather than benefiting from noise, style exposure, or favourable conditions. Beating the benchmark in 19 of 36 months is also only slightly more than half the observations. The beta figures do not support a market-timing claim because the portfolio beta was almost identical before benchmark-up and benchmark-down months. Under market-efficiency assumptions, claims about durable alpha, persistent anomalies, or timing skill require stronger and more repeatable evidence, ideally after costs and with appropriate risk adjustment.

• The active-return and information-ratio calculation is supported by the figures: \(9.0\% - 7.8\% = 1.2\%\), then \(1.2\% / 6.0\% = 0.20\).
• The market-timing caution is supported because beta was 1.02 before benchmark-up months and 1.01 before benchmark-down months.
• The further-due-diligence view is supported because the record is short and does not establish anomaly persistence or durable alpha.
• The claim that the record proves persistent skill overstates the evidence from a low information ratio and a limited observation period.

A 1.2% active return with 6.0% tracking error gives an information ratio of only 0.20, and the short record does not prove persistent skill.

Question 9

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

An investment committee is reviewing whether to replace passive equity holdings with active funds in a client’s discretionary portfolio.

Client mandate:

• Long-term growth portfolio, GBP base currency.
• Benchmark-aware client with moderate tolerance for active risk.
• Higher fees and turnover are acceptable only where there is a clear expected benefit after implementation costs and tax.
• Current global developed equity core is held through a low-cost physical index fund.

Research extract:

• Developed large-cap equities: high analyst coverage, tight spreads, frequent disclosure, index fund OCF of 0.08%.
• Proposed active global large-cap fund: OCF of 0.85%, high turnover, recent top-quartile three-year return mainly from an overweight to US mega-cap technology; 10-year alpha is not statistically significant after style-factor adjustment.
• Proposed frontier/small-cap strategy: capacity-limited specialist team, documented process targeting information and liquidity inefficiencies, eight-year positive information ratio after fees versus an investable benchmark, acceptable liquidity at the proposed sleeve size.

Which recommendation is most consistent with using efficient market evidence in the portfolio-construction decision?

• A. Adopt active management across all equity allocations because efficient market evidence is relevant only to index providers, not discretionary portfolios.
• B. Avoid all active management because efficient markets make manager outperformance impossible in every asset class and market segment.
• C. Replace the passive developed-market core with the active global large-cap fund because recent top-quartile returns prove that the market is inefficient.
• D. Keep the passive developed-market core, and use active management only in the specialist sleeve if the manager skill and implementation case remains credible net of costs.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: Efficient market evidence does not automatically require an entirely passive portfolio, but it raises the hurdle for active management. In highly researched, liquid developed large-cap markets, the case for persistent alpha is harder to defend, especially where apparent outperformance is recent, factor-driven, high-cost, and not statistically significant after adjustment. Active management is more plausible where the market segment is less efficient and the manager can show a repeatable process, an investable benchmark comparison, net-of-fee evidence, capacity discipline, and acceptable implementation risks. The client’s mandate also requires a clear expected benefit after costs and tax. On these facts, the passive developed-market core remains appropriate, while the specialist sleeve has the stronger active-management case.

• Recent top-quartile performance alone is weak evidence; it may reflect style exposure, luck, or a temporary market trend rather than skill.
• Applying active management across all equity allocations ignores differences in market efficiency, costs, turnover, and the client’s active-risk constraint.
• Rejecting all active management overstates efficient market theory; the issue is whether a specific inefficiency or manager skill case is credible after implementation frictions.

Active management is most supportable where there is a plausible market inefficiency or repeatable manager skill case after fees, costs, tax, capacity and risk are considered.

Question 10

Topic: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

A wealth manager is reviewing a global equity fund for inclusion in a responsible investment model portfolio.

The fund’s factsheet states:

“Our sustainability screen and ESG integration have delivered superior investment performance.”

Review data, annualised over the same period:

Using CAPM as a simple risk adjustment, the expected fund return is:

\(3.0\% + 1.2 \times (7.2\% - 3.0\%)\)

Which conclusion is most appropriate?

• A. The benchmark comparison is irrelevant because sustainability outcomes should replace financial performance assessment.
• B. The fund should be rejected because ESG screening normally implies a permanent expected return penalty.
• C. The fund has proved that ESG integration adds value, because its 8.0% return is higher than the benchmark return of 7.2%.
• D. The sustainability claim should not be treated as automatic evidence of outperformance, because the fund return is approximately explained by its higher market beta.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Efficient Markets, Anomalies, Evidence, and Investment-Approach Implications

Explanation: ESG or sustainability features may be important for client preferences, stewardship, risk management, or long-term investment beliefs, but they are not automatic evidence of superior performance. Here the fund’s raw return is 0.8 percentage points above the benchmark, but it also has a beta of 1.2. The CAPM estimate is \(3.0\% + 1.2 \times 4.2\% = 8.04\%\), which is essentially the same as the fund’s 8.0% return. The apparent outperformance can therefore be explained by higher market exposure rather than by sustainability skill. A proper assessment would consider risk-adjusted performance, style and factor exposures, fees, tracking error, time period, and whether sustainability claims are supported by evidence.

• A higher raw return alone is not enough when the fund has taken more market risk.
• Assuming ESG always reduces returns is too broad; the evidence depends on process, exposures, cost, and period.
• Sustainability objectives do not remove the need to assess financial performance against a suitable benchmark and risk profile.

The CAPM estimate is about 8.0%, so the raw excess return over the benchmark does not show positive risk-adjusted outperformance.

Continue in the web app

Use Finance Prep for interactive CISI CWM Portfolio Construction practice with mixed sets, timed mock exams, topic drills, explanations, and progress tracking.

Related focused pages

• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Exam: Portfolio Construction
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Client Risk and Portfolio Strategy
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Asset Allocation and MPT
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Investment Risk and Return
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Asset Pricing and Valuation
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Behavioural Finance
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Fund Management and ESG
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Portfolio Derivatives and Hedging
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: Benchmarking and Attribution
• Free CISI CWM PCT Practice Questions: UK Investment Taxation

Practice next step

Use the Finance Prep web app above when you want interactive practice beyond this static page.