Discuss CIMA CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Exam Topic 4 Question 87

An electricity company owns and operates a nuclear power station located ten miles from a large city. A recent and very extensive engineering examination of the power station concludes with the estimate that the probability of a major nuclear disaster within the next 20 years is 0.2%.

Which of the following best explains the relevance of quantifying the risk in that way?

AThere is no acceptable level of risk for a major nuclear accident and so the probability has little information value in itself.

BThe probability is so low as to be ignored.

CThe directors will be able to argue that they were not negligent in the event of a major disaster within the 20 year period.

DThe calculation of a precise probability demonstrates that the engineers who conducted the inspection are experts in their field.

Suggested Answer: A

Get Premium CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

24 comments · newest first

Willetta 1 day ago

I feel like A is the most responsible choice.

Denise 6 days ago

D shows the engineers' expertise, but is it enough?

Jesusita 12 days ago

A highlights the seriousness of nuclear risks.

Norah 17 days ago

C could protect the company legally.

Ivette 22 days ago

But B seems too dismissive.

Gaynell 27 days ago

I think A makes sense.

Maryln 1 month ago

This question is tricky.

Vilma 1 month ago

Right! It's about public safety, not just numbers.

Lonny 1 month ago

Exactly, Lisa. The risk shouldn't be quantified as acceptable.

Mohammad 2 months ago

But does that really matter if the risk is still there?

Tesha 2 months ago

I lean towards option D. It shows the engineers know what they're doing.

Verona 2 months ago

True, Mike, but that feels like shifting blame.

Mattie 2 months ago

But isn't option C also valid? It could protect the company legally.

Vilma 2 months ago

I agree, John. It's too serious to just brush off.

Lonny 2 months ago

I think option A makes sense. No risk is acceptable for nuclear accidents.

Wilda 3 months ago

Probability doesn't mean it's safe; we need better standards!

Anissa 3 months ago

This just shows they can claim no negligence later.

Tresa 3 months ago

Wait, how can we trust those numbers?

Arthur 3 months ago

I think any risk is too much for a nuclear plant!

Cyril 3 months ago

0.2% is really low, but still a risk.

Ronnie 3 months ago

I vaguely recall that D might be misleading. Just because they calculated a probability doesn’t necessarily mean they’re experts. It feels like a tricky option.

Yvonne 4 months ago

I practiced a similar question where the focus was on accountability. I think C makes sense because it could protect the directors legally if something goes wrong.

Eileen 4 months ago

I’m not sure, but I feel like B could be a possibility since 0.2% seems really low. Maybe it’s something we shouldn’t worry about too much?

William 4 months ago

I remember discussing how risk quantification can be tricky, especially with something as serious as nuclear power. I think A might be the right choice since any risk could be unacceptable.

CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Exam - Topic 4 Question 87 Discussion