MENU
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?
Suggested Answer: A, B, D
Get Premium CIMAPRO19-P03-1 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
38 comments · newest first
MA
Marcos
12 months ago
But what if that 0.2% happens? That's a huge deal!
KA
Kate
12 months ago
Totally agree with C! They’ll use that to cover themselves.
CU
Curt
1 year ago
Really? 0.2% seems low, but can we trust those numbers?
AN
Antonio
1 year ago
I think A makes the most sense. No risk is acceptable here.
EL
Eladia
1 year ago
0.2% is still a risk, though!
CA
Caprice
1 year ago
I’m a bit confused about option D; just because they calculated a probability doesn’t necessarily mean they are experts, right?
MA
Marlon
1 year ago
I’m leaning towards option C because it seems like the company could use that probability to defend themselves if something goes wrong.
MA
Mammie
1 year ago
I think I saw a similar question about risk assessment in our practice exams, and I feel like the low probability might not be enough to dismiss concerns.
CH
Christa
1 year ago
I remember discussing how some people argue that any risk of a nuclear disaster is unacceptable, so I'm not sure if the probability really matters.
WE
Wenona
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward. I think the key is to focus on the specific capabilities of Intrusion Prevention rules.
DA
Daniel
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. The options seem to cover a wide range of time frames. I'll have to do some quick research to figure out the typical detection time for Cisco customers.
GE
Georgeanna
1 year ago
I think listening deliberately might be one of the options, but I'm not completely sure which other one to pick.
CE
Celia
1 year ago
I remember from the SIAM training that the business case is one of the first things you need to establish, so I think the correct answer is A - Discovery and Strategy. That makes the most sense to me.
KA
Karma
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question seems clear, but I want to make sure I understand all the options before selecting an answer. Let me re-read this a few times to make sure I don't miss anything.
MI
Miles
1 year ago
Ooh, 0.2% probability? That's about the same chance of me acing this exam. Gotta love those engineers and their fancy math skills.
ER
Eric
1 year ago
D) The calculation of a precise probability demonstrates that the engineers who conducted the inspection are experts in their field.
MA
Margo
1 year ago
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.
SK
Skye
1 year ago
B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.
NI
Nickolas
1 year ago
A) There is no acceptable level of risk for a major nuclear accident and so the probability has little information value in itself.
AR
Arlyne
1 year ago
Experts, schmexperts. I'd feel a lot better if they could guarantee there's zero chance of a meltdown. Anything above 0% is too high for me.
TO
Tora
1 year ago
C: I think quantifying the risk helps the directors make informed decisions.
BU
Buddy
1 year ago
B: But the probability is so low, it's almost negligible.
MA
Markus
1 year ago
A: I agree, any chance of a meltdown is too risky.
AL
Alease
1 year ago
I'm sorry, but 'not negligent' is not the same as 'safe.' The directors better have a really good evacuation plan ready to go, just in case.
JA
Janella
1 year ago
C: I agree, the directors should have a solid evacuation plan in place regardless of the probability.
MI
Misty
1 year ago
B: I disagree, even a small probability of a major nuclear disaster is concerning.
JA
Janna
1 year ago
A: The probability is so low as to be ignored.
VI
Virgina
2 years ago
Quantifying the risk is great and all, but I'm more concerned about what they plan to do to mitigate that 0.2% chance. Maybe they can give everyone in the city a radiation-proof suit just in case.
AD
Adell
1 year ago
B: Maybe they could invest in more safety measures to reduce the risk even further.
SV
Svetlana
1 year ago
A: They should definitely have a plan in place to mitigate that small chance of a disaster.
KA
Kathrine
2 years ago
But does a 0.2% probability really provide enough information?
MI
Milly
2 years ago
Wow, 0.2% probability of a major nuclear disaster? That's like winning the lottery, but in reverse. I guess the engineers are trying to lull us into a false sense of security.
JU
Junita
1 year ago
Wow, 0.2% probability of a major nuclear disaster? That's like winning the lottery, but in reverse. I guess the engineers are trying to lull us into a false sense of security.
CH
Chan
1 year ago
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.
NO
Norah
1 year ago
B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.
NI
Nickolas
2 years ago
A) There is no acceptable level of risk for a major nuclear accident and so the probability has little information value in itself.
CH
Chau
2 years ago
I agree, it helps the company assess the potential consequences.
KA
Kate
2 years ago
I think quantifying the risk is important for decision-making.