MAA262 \u2013 Management Accounting
\nTrimester 2, 2019
\nAssessment 2 \u2013 Individual Assignment Part I
\nDUE DATE AND TIME: Week 5, 09\/08\/2019, 6:00 PM
\nPERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 15%
\nHURDLE DETAILS: No hurdle
\nLearning Outcome Details
\nUnit Learning Outcome (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcome (GLO)
\nULO 3: Prepare and explain alternate product costing using job
\ncosting, variable and absorption costing, and activity-based costing
\nsystems.
\nGLO 1, 2 & 5
\nULO 6: Demonstrate a student-oriented approach to learning. GLO 1 & 2
\nAssessment Feedback:
\nStudents who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on
\nCloudDeakin on 26\/08\/2019, 6:00 PM.
\nInstructions
\nPenalties for late submission: The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment
\ntask after the due date without an approved extension: 5% will be deducted from available marks for
\neach day up to five days, and work that is submitted more than five days after the due date will not
\nbe marked. ‘Day’ means working day for paper submissions and calendar day for electronic
\nsubmissions. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or
\nimpracticable to assess the task after the due date.
\nPage 2 of 10
\nExtension and special consideration: If you want to request an extension for an assignment task or
\nsome other sort of special consideration please check whether you are eligible or not. Please note
\nthat if you are not eligible or you lack evidence supporting your request, your request will be
\ndismissed. Special consideration requests regarding summative assessment tasks before the due
\ndate should be directed to the unit chair. Special consideration requests regarding the final exam
\nshould be lodged with our Division of Student Administration (DSA), so please note the unit chair is
\nnot responsible for handling special considerations regarding the final exam. Extensions can be
\ngranted for unexpected circumstances such as serious illness or for compassionate reasons under
\nspecial circumstances. Extensions can only be approved by the unit chair and have to be requested
\nbefore the due date. You will be asked to provide evidence to support your request and a draft of the
\nwork completed to date. Where an extension is approved you will be given between 1 day and 2
\nweeks to submit your work. For requests after the due date please submit your request to Special
\nConsideration https:\/\/www.deakin.edu.au\/students\/studying\/assessment-and-results\/specialconsideration. Work or holidays or other assignments are not grounds for an extension \u2013 you are
\nexpected to manage these issues as part of your studies. You are strongly encouraged to start early
\nand to continually backup your assignment as you progress. Computer crashes or corrupted files will
\nnot be accepted as valid reasons for an extension of any length.
\nA brief description of the assessment task: This assignment task will consolidate your understanding
\nof some of the key concepts covered in this unit. Please submit your answers to the questions in the
\norder they are presented, clearly identifying on the document which question is being addressed. As
\nlong as you are clearly identifying which question is being addressed you are not required to repeat
\nthe question on your assignment.
\nSubmission instructions: This assignment is to be submitted online only. The completed assignment
\nmust be submitted as one file as a Microsoft Word document or Portable Document Format (PDF)
\ninto the allocated area on CloudDeakin under the Dropbox folder on or before the due date. Once
\nsubmitted, you cannot retract your assignment but you can submit another version. Note that only
\nthe most recent version submitted will be marked. You must keep a backup copy of every assignment
\nyou submit until the marked assignment has been returned to you. In the unlikely event that one of
\nyour assignments is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy. When you are required to
\nsubmit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an email to your Deakin
\nemail address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check that you can see your
\nassignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment Dropbox folder after uploading it, and check
\nfor, and keep, the email receipt for the submission.
\nPlagiarism: You should answer the questions using your own words. If you use material or ideas from
\na third-party source you must cite the reference in text and include the full details of the source in a
\nreference list. Your assignment submission will be assessed through Turnitin. Assignments submitted
\nwith 50% or more on the similarity index (orange or red colour) will not be marked. Note that Turnitin
\nworks in the assignment folder, and there is where you should submit your assignment. Do not
\nsubmit your assignment somewhere else, because if you submit your assignment in another folder
\nfrom another unit the document will be stored in Turnitin memory, and I will receive a notice of 100%
\nplagiarism. Hence, to avoid such hassle please submit your assignment in the assignment folder.
\nCheck Academic Integrity for more information regarding plagiarism and collusion:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/deakin.edu.au\/students\/studying\/academic-integrity
\nPage 3 of 10
\nDetail of student output: Your response should respond to all questions. The word limit is 2,000
\nwords (maximum) in total, and words limit includes headings, tables, references and appendices.
\nNote that a contents page and cover page are not required. In regards to the formatting of the
\nassignment, there is no specific requirement in regards to font, font size and line spacing. There is no
\nminimum amount of words. Any word above the limit of 2,000 will be penalised by 1 mark for each
\nadditional word, thus 2,010 words have a 10 marks penalty, 2,020 words have a 20 marks penalty,
\nand henceforth.
\nWeight (% total mark for the unit): This assignment is marked out of 100 and is worth 15% of your
\nfinal grade. The final examination is the only hurdle requirement for this unit. If you choose not to
\nsubmit this assignment, you will score zero for this assignment.
\nReferencing style: Use the Harvard style of referencing. More information regarding referencing
\nstyles at https:\/\/www.deakin.edu.au\/students\/studying\/study-support\/referencing
\nResearching for your assignment: There is no such thing as a minimum or maximum amount of
\nreferences to be used in this assignment, and references should be used only when required. If a
\nquestion requires research for answering, check the guidelines available on the academic skills study
\nsupport page: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/deakin.edu.au\/students\/studying\/study-support\/academic-skills
\nQueries: Please peruse the discussion forum as you may find the information you are looking for. If
\nyou are unable to find the information regarding the individual assignment you are looking for, please
\ncontact the teaching team by using the discussion forum on CloudDeakin.
\nPage 4 of 10
\nFridges-R-Fun
\nFridges-R-Fun is a small company which makes and sells fridges. The company is owned by John, who started
\nhis business from scratch. The second in the chain of command is Paul, the general manager.
\nQuestion 1
\nRecently John has been concerned that his company may be wasting too much money on unnecessary costs,
\nso he decided to hire someone to analyse his company\u2019s numbers and do some management accounting. He
\nrequested his general manager, Paul, to hire someone who can fulfil this management accounting task.
\nFor doing some management accounting analyses, Paul hired George the Plumber. George is a licensed
\nplumber. Also, George is Paul\u2019s brother-in-law and had been looking for a full-time job for a while. Paul has
\nexplained to the owner of Fridges-R-Fun that George understands a lot about pipes, so he was pretty sure he
\nwould exceed on his role.
\nRequired
\nPlease state one of the ethical standards, as provided by the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)
\nStatement of Ethical Professional Practice, which is being jeopardized by Paul hiring George the Plumber and
\njustify why this standard is being jeopardized. (There might be more than one ethical standard being
\njeopardized but only one is required for this question). (10 marks)
\nQuestion 2
\nJohn is proud of his \u2018learning as you go approach’. Since his early days in the industry, John enjoys reworking
\non fridges for fixing problems. Often Fridges-R-Fun products display problems on the welding between heatexchanging pipes and the compressor. Also, it is not uncommon having customers requesting repairs or
\nreplacements due to problems with their fridges during the 5 years warranty.
\nJohn and Paul are concerned that Fridges-R-Fun is wasting too much money. So, Paul has hired Ringo for doing
\nsome management accounting. (George the Plumber did not last a month in the job). Ringo is a qualified
\nmanagement accountant and is keen to use his knowledge to Help Fridges-R-Fun.
\nRingo reviewed the quality costs activities (Year 1) and noted that Fridges-R-Fun has been spending too much
\nmoney on warranties. With the support of both John and Paul, Ringo decided to implement the following
\nchanges:
\n\u2022 Develop a new system for streamlining the assembly line.
\n\u2022 Provide technical support to suppliers for minimizing the chances of receiving faulty material.
\n\u2022 Field testing of fridges at customers\u2019 sites.
\n\u2022 Inspection of fridges on assembling line.
\nPage 5 of 10
\nThe amounts spent on quality costs are listed on Table 1:
\nTable 1 \u2013 Quality Costs
\nActivity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
\nSystems development $ $ 200 $ 100
\nTechnical support to suppliers of compressors $ $ 150 $ 150
\nTechnical support to suppliers of pipes $ $ 100 $ 100
\nField testing at customers\u2019 sites $ $ 250 $ 250
\nInspection on assembling line $ $ 500 $ 500
\nRework on assembling line $ 500 $ 100 $
\nWarranty repairs of fridges $ 700 $ 600 $ 500
\nWarranty replacements of fridges $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,100
\nTotal quality costs $ 2,700 $ 3,200 $ 2,700
\nRequired
\na) Classify the 8 activities among the four types of quality costs. (6 marks)
\nb) Using the information provided in Table 1, explain the relationship between the four types of quality
\ncosts and what has changed throughout the years. (6 marks)
\nQuestion 3
\nWhen the quality costs for Year 3 were ready, John was disappointed with the outcome. The total quality costs
\nhave increased in Year 2 and finally, in Year 3 the company was back to square zero, spending $ 2,700 in quality
\ncosts. Paul was supportive of Ringo’s decisions and argued that quality is a long-term investment as it takes
\ntime to reap its benefits.
\nRequired
\na) Explain John and Paul\u2019s differing points of view of quality costs. (6 marks)
\nb) Explain what is expected to happen in Year 4 if (i) Fridges-R-Fun keeps following Ringo’s decision and
\nif (ii) Fridges-R-Fun cancels the activities Ringo has implemented. (6 marks)
\nQuestion 4
\nRingo is working on the expenses of delivering fridges to customers. Expenses for six months are compiled in
\nTable 2.
\nTable 2 \u2013 Delivery Expense
\nMonth Fridges delivered Delivery expense
\nJanuary 450 $ 4,600
\nFebruary 280 $ 3,000
\nMarch 400 $ 4,100
\nApril 550 $ 5,700
\nMay 500 $ 5,000
\nJune 450 $ 4,700
\nTotal 2,630 $ 27,100
\nPage 6 of 10
\nRequired
\na) Using the high-low method and the information provided in Table 2, estimate the variable and the
\nfixed portions of the delivery expense for Fridges-R-Fun. (6 marks)
\nb) After reviewing Ringo’s estimated delivery expenses using the high-low method, Paul has noted that
\nthe estimated expenses do not exactly match the actual expenses for all months in Table 2. Why is
\nthis happening? (6 marks)
\nQuestion 5
\nRingo has implemented a job-order costing system for Fridges-R-Fun using predetermined overhead rates. For
\nthis part, the focus is on two different processes in Fridges-R-Fun, namely, welding the pipes to the compressor
\nand assembling the fridges. The predetermined overhead rate for welding is based on machine-hours and the
\npredetermined overhead rate for assembly is based on direct labour-hours.
\nRingo has compiled the following estimates for Year 1:
\nTable 3 \u2013 Estimates for Year 1
\nEstimates Welding Assembly
\nDirect labour-hours 3,600 7,200
\nMachine-hours 6,000 600
\nFixed manufacturing overhead cost $ 288,000 $ 64,800
\nVariable manufacturing overhead per machine-hour $ 2.00 $ –
\nVariable manufacturing overhead per direct labour-hour $ – $ 1.00
\nThe plan is to use the implemented job-order costing system for the following job:
\nTable 4 \u2013 Job
\nJob Welding Assembly
\nDirect labour-hours 25 80
\nMachine-hours 40 5
\nDirect materials $ 500 $ 200
\nDirect labour cost $ 300 $ 800
\nRequired
\nBased on this specific job, answer the following questions:
\na) Calculate the predetermined overhead rates used for welding and assembly. (6 marks)
\nb) Calculate the total overhead cost applied to this specific job. (6 marks)
\nc) Calculate the total manufacturing cost recorded for this specific job. (6 marks)
\nd) Considering that this specific job contains 100 units, calculate the unit product cost. (6 marks)
\ne) Considering the industry benchmark for the overhead for assembly is 75% of direct labour cost,
\nidentify whether this specific job has an overhead for assembly lower or higher than a job using the
\nindustry benchmark. Briefly explain what could cause a difference between this specific job and the
\nindustry benchmark for the assembly overhead cost. (6 marks)
\nPage 7 of 10
\nQuestion 6
\nAfter the changes implemented on the costs of quality presented in Question 2, Ringo wants to implement
\nvalue-based pricing for Fridges-R-Fun products. As a consequence, the price of fridges would become
\ncustomised to different customers based on criteria such as geographic location. Currently, Fridges-R-Fun uses
\ncost-plus pricing for setting the prices of its products, as discussed by Dholakia (2018).1
\nRequired
\na) List and explain three limitations of using cost-plus pricing, as discussed by Dholakia (2018). (6 marks)
\nb) Explain how value-based pricing would benefit from the costs of quality changes implemented by
\nRingo, as discussed in Question 2. (6 marks)
\nQuestion 7
\nRingo is reviewing the predetermined overhead rate used to estimate the welding overhead cost Year 1. The
\nestimated total welding overhead cost is $ 300,000 and the estimated level of activity is 6,000 machine-hours.
\nBy the end of the year, Fridges-R-Fun incurred actual total manufacturing overhead cost for welding of
\n$320,000 and 5,800 total machine hours.
\nRequired
\na) Determine the amount of underapplied or overapplied manufacturing overhead for Year 1. (6 marks)
\nb) What is the implication of having large overapplied or underapplied overhead to the management
\nplanning and product costing? (6 marks)
\n1 The additional reading for this unit is the following Harvard Business Review article https:\/\/hbr.org\/2018\/07\/when-cost-plus-pricing-is-agood-idea
\nCriteria N N P C D HD
\n0 3 6 7 8 10
\nGLO1 –
\nEthics
\n(Q1 – 10
\nmarks)
\nNot able to list the
\nethical standards or
\njustify why these
\nstandards are being
\njeopardized.
\nNot correctly list the
\nethical standards or
\njustify why these
\nstandards are being
\njeopardized.
\nList some of the ethical
\nstandards or justify
\nwhy these standards
\nare being jeopardized.
\nList the ethical
\nstandards and partially
\njustify why these
\nstandards are being
\njeopardized.
\nList the ethical
\nstandards and justify
\nwhy these standards
\nare being jeopardized.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nlist the ethical
\nstandards and justify
\nwhy these standards
\nare being jeopardized.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO1 –
\nQuality
\nCosts
\n(Q2.a – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to classify the
\nactivities.
\nNot able classify
\ncorrectly most of the
\nactivities among the
\nfour types of quality
\ncosts.
\nClassify correctly most
\nof the activities among
\nthe four types of
\nquality costs.
\nClassify correctly a
\nsubstantial part of
\nactivities among the
\nfour types of quality
\ncosts.
\nClassify correctly the
\nmajority of activities
\namong the four types
\nof quality costs.
\nClassify correctly all 8
\nactivities among the
\nfour types of quality
\ncosts.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO2 –
\nQuality
\nCosts
\n(Q2.b – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to explain the
\nbehaviour between the
\nfour types of quality
\ncosts and what has
\nchanged throughout
\nthe years.
\nNot able to properly
\nexplain the behaviour
\nbetween the four types
\nof quality costs and
\nwhat has changed
\nthroughout the years.
\nPartially explain the
\nbehaviour between
\nthe four types of
\nquality costs and what
\nhas changed
\nthroughout the years.
\nExplain most of the
\nbehaviour between
\nthe four types of
\nquality costs and what
\nhas changed
\nthroughout the years.
\nExplain the behaviour
\nbetween the four types
\nof quality costs and
\nwhat has changed
\nthroughout the years.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nexplain the behaviour
\nbetween the four
\ntypes of quality costs
\nand what has changed
\nthroughout the years.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO2 –
\nQuality
\nCosts
\n(Q3.a – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to explain the
\ndiffering points of view
\nof quality costs.
\nNot able to properly
\nexplain the differing
\npoints of view of
\nquality costs.
\nPartially explain the
\ndiffering points of view
\nof quality costs.
\nExplain most of the
\ndiffering points of view
\nof quality costs.
\nExplain the differing
\npoints of view of
\nquality costs.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nexplain the differing
\npoints of view of
\nquality costs.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO5 –
\nQuality
\nCosts
\n(Q3.b – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to explain
\nwhat is expected in the
\nnext year considering
\ntwo different
\nscenarios.
\nNot able to properly
\nexplain what is
\nexpected in the next
\nyear considering two
\ndifferent scenarios.
\nPartially explain what
\nis expected in the next
\nyear considering two
\ndifferent scenarios.
\nExplain most of what is
\nexpected in the next
\nyear considering two
\ndifferent scenarios.
\nExplain what is
\nexpected in the next
\nyear considering two
\ndifferent scenarios.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nexplain what is
\nexpected in the next
\nyear considering two
\ndifferent scenarios.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nPage 9 of 10
\nCriteria N N P C D HD
\nGLO1 –
\nMixed
\nCosts
\n(Q4.a – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to estimate
\nthe variable and the
\nfixed portions of the
\ndelivery expense.
\nNot able to properly
\nestimate the variable
\nand the fixed portions
\nof the delivery
\nexpense.
\nPartially estimate the
\nvariable and the fixed
\nportions of the
\ndelivery expense.
\nEstimate most of some
\npart of the delivery
\nexpense.
\nEstimate correctly most
\nof the variable and the
\nfixed portions of the
\ndelivery expense.
\nEstimate the variable
\nand the fixed portions
\nof the delivery
\nexpense.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO5 –
\nHigh-Low
\nMethod
\n(Q4.b – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to explain
\nwhy the estimated
\nexpenses do not
\nexactly match all actual
\nexpenses.
\nNot able to properly
\nexplain why the
\nestimated expenses do
\nnot exactly match all
\nactual expenses.
\nPartially explain why
\nthe estimated
\nexpenses do not
\nexactly match all
\nactual expenses.
\nExplain most of why
\nthe estimated
\nexpenses do not
\nexactly match all
\nactual expenses.
\nExplain why the
\nestimated expenses do
\nnot exactly match all
\nactual expenses.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nexplain why the
\nestimated expenses
\ndo not exactly match
\nall actual expenses.
\n0 6 13 16 18 24
\nGLO1 –
\nActivity
\nCosts
\n(Q5.a-d –
\n24
\nmarks)
\nNot able to calculate
\nthe predetermined
\noverhead rates used
\nfor welding and
\nassembly, the total
\noverhead cost applied
\nto Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\nNot able to properly
\ncalculate the
\npredetermined
\noverhead rates used for
\nwelding and assembly,
\nthe total overhead cost
\napplied to Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\nPartially calculate the
\npredetermined
\noverhead rates used
\nfor welding and
\nassembly, the total
\noverhead cost applied
\nto Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\nCalculate most of the
\npredetermined
\noverhead rates used
\nfor welding and
\nassembly, the total
\noverhead cost applied
\nto Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\nCalculate correctly
\nmost of the
\npredetermined
\noverhead rates used
\nfor welding and
\nassembly, the total
\noverhead cost applied
\nto Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\nCalculate the
\npredetermined
\noverhead rates used
\nfor welding and
\nassembly, the total
\noverhead cost applied
\nto Job, the total
\nmanufacturing cost
\nrecorded for Job, and
\nunit product cost.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO2 –
\nActivity
\nCosts
\n(Q5.e – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to identify
\nand explain the
\ndifference in
\nestimating the
\noverhead cost.
\nNot able to properly
\nidentify and explain the
\ndifference in estimating
\nthe overhead cost.
\nPartially identify or
\nexplain the difference
\nin estimating the
\noverhead cost.
\nIdentify and explain
\nmost of the difference
\nin estimating the
\noverhead cost.
\nIdentify and explain the
\ndifference in
\nestimating the
\noverhead cost.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nidentify and explain
\nthe difference in
\nestimating the
\noverhead cost.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO1 –
\nCost-plus
\nPricing
\nNot able to list and
\nexplain three
\nNot able to properly list
\nand explain three
\nPartially list and
\nexplain three
\nList and mostly explain
\nthree limitations of
\nusing cost-plus pricing.
\nList and explain three
\nlimitations of using
\ncost-plus pricing.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nlist and explain three
\nPage 10 of 10
\nCriteria N N P C D HD
\n(Q6.a – 6
\nmarks)
\nlimitations of using
\ncost-plus pricing.
\nlimitations of using
\ncost-plus pricing.
\nlimitations of using
\ncost-plus pricing.
\nlimitations of using
\ncost-plus pricing.
\n0 2 3 4 5 6
\nGLO2 –
\nValuebased
\nPricing
\n(Q6.b – 6
\nmarks)
\nNot able to explain
\nhow value-based
\npricing would benefit
\nfrom the costs of
\nquality changes
\nimplemented.
\nNot able to properly
\nexplain how valuebased pricing would
\nbenefit from the costs
\nof quality changes
\nimplemented.
\nPartially explain how
\nvalue-based pricing
\nwould benefit from the
\ncosts of quality
\nchanges implemented.
\nExplain mostly how
\nvalue-based pricing
\nwould benefit from the
\ncosts of quality
\nchanges implemented.
\nExplain how valuebased pricing would
\nbenefit from the costs
\nof quality changes
\nimplemented.
\nClearly and succinctly
\nexplain how valuebased pricing would
\nbenefit from the costs
\nof quality changes
\nimplemented.
\n0 3 7 8 9 12
\nGLO2 –
\nActivity
\nCosts
\n(Q7.a-b –
\n6 marks)
\nNot able to calculate
\nand explain the
\nimplication of applied
\noverhead cost.
\nNot able to properly
\ncalculate and explain
\nthe implication of
\napplied overhead cost.
\nPartially calculate or
\nexplain the implication
\nof applied overhead
\ncost.
\nMostly calculate and
\nexplain the implication
\nof applied overhead
\ncost.
\nCalculate and explain
\nthe implication of
\napplied overhead cost.
\nClearly and succinctly
\ncalculate and explain
\nthe implication of
\napplied overhead cost.
\n0-24% 25-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
MAA262 \u2013 Management Accounting Trimester 2, 2019 Assessment 2 \u2013 Individual Assignment Part I DUE DATE AND TIME: Week 5, 09\/08\/2019, 6:00 PM PERCENTAGE OF\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-130463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130463","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}