Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

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

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?
A) There is no acceptable level of risk for a major nuclear accident and so the probability has little information value in itself.
B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.
C) The directors will be able to argue that they were not negligent in the event of a major disaster within the 20 year period.
D) The calculation of a precise probability demonstrates that the engineers who conducted the inspection are experts in their field.

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

Actual exam question for CIMA's CIMAPRA19-P03-1 exam
Question #: 87
Topic #: 4
[All CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Questions]

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Margart at Jun 29, 2026, 05:21 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Ronnie
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yvonne
5 days 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eileen
10 days 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?
upvoted 0 times
...
William
15 days 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.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel