Accounting & bookkeeping
Accounting Skills Practice Test: Reconcile an Original Supplier Extract
An accounting skills test can assess how you read evidence, calculate a balance and explain an exception. The original work sample below practices those tasks with synthetic supplier records. It is not a prediction of any employer’s interview test or a claim about how candidates will be scored.
Download the practice files
Download the original test records
Five fictional source rows, including one explicitly confirmed repeated export row.
Download CSVDownload the checked answer key
Balances and explanations for comparing your own attempt.
Download CSVAttempt the work sample first
Use the downloadable input CSV or the records below. Work from the stated source notes: P-201 represents one confirmed payment receipt repeated in the export, not two separate cash payments. All invoice and credit amounts are confirmed for this fixture, with no tax or currency differences.
Questions: What balance does a raw sum of the export imply? What balance follows the confirmed source events? How much remains on each invoice? What would you tell a reviewer before the extract is used?
Read the original input records
Keep record identity and allocation separate from the arithmetic.
Original five-row extract
I-101: valid invoice 420.
I-102: valid invoice 180.
P-201: one confirmed payment 250, allocated to I-101.
C-301: confirmed credit 20, allocated to I-102.
P-201 again: the same confirmed receipt repeated as an export row.
Check the answer and invoice allocations
A raw calculation counts the payment twice: 420 + 180 − 250 − 20 − 250 = 80. The source-event balance is 420 + 180 − 250 − 20 = 330. I-101 remains 170, and I-102 remains 160; these sum to 330.
The difference is 250. It comes from the explicitly confirmed repeated export row, not an unexplained supplier discount or another payment. Equal-looking IDs alone would not always prove duplication in real data; the retained receipt and fixture note establish it here.
Use a reasoning rubric, not a memorized story
A strong practice response shows the arithmetic, cites the source identity, separates confirmed facts from assumptions and gives a reviewable next step. A weak response simply announces 330 without explaining why one row was excluded.
Original model explanation
“The raw export gives 80, but it repeats one confirmed 250 payment. Using each confirmed event once gives 330: 170 on I-101 and 160 on I-102. I would retain both raw rows, document the extraction issue and verify the corrected report before treating 80 as the payable.”
Use it for a remote rehearsal honestly
For a remote practice session, share only this synthetic file and ask the learner to explain the working aloud or provide a short written note. Agree the allowed reference materials and timing for that practice; do not infer a particular employer’s rules.
OpenStax describes the flow from source records to accounting summaries. This exercise tests that connection without asking you to use real supplier or employee records. Inspect the answer-key CSV only after completing your attempt, then compare the explanation as well as the final number.
Questions, answered
Is this an actual employer’s test?
No. The records, questions and rubric are original practice material.
Should every repeated ID be deleted?
No. This fixture explicitly confirms one duplicated export row. Real cases require source verification and an approved correction process.
Sources and examples
ResumizeAI team. Examples are fictional teaching material, not customer results. Replace sample details with your own facts.
Your experience. A complete resume.
Build in Resumize with ATS-friendly templates, guided editing and a live preview. Start free, then upgrade when you need more.
Free account required. Free-plan PDF exports include a watermark.