CIMAPRO19-P03-1 Exam - Topic 4 Question 39 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIMA's CIMAPRO19-P03-1 exam

Question #: 39
Topic #: 4

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.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A, B, D

by Deonna at Oct 15, 2022, 06:02 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIMAPRO19-P03-1 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Marcos

7 months ago

But what if that 0.2% happens? That's a huge deal!

upvoted 0 times

...

Kate

7 months ago

Totally agree with C! They’ll use that to cover themselves.

upvoted 0 times

...

Curt

7 months ago

Really? 0.2% seems low, but can we trust those numbers?

upvoted 0 times

...

Antonio

7 months ago

I think A makes the most sense. No risk is acceptable here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eladia

8 months ago

0.2% is still a risk, though!

upvoted 0 times

...

Caprice

8 months ago

I’m a bit confused about option D; just because they calculated a probability doesn’t necessarily mean they are experts, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Marlon

8 months ago

I’m leaning towards option C because it seems like the company could use that probability to defend themselves if something goes wrong.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mammie

8 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Christa

8 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wenona

8 months ago

This question seems straightforward. I think the key is to focus on the specific capabilities of Intrusion Prevention rules.

upvoted 0 times

...

Daniel

8 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Georgeanna

8 months ago

I think listening deliberately might be one of the options, but I'm not completely sure which other one to pick.

upvoted 0 times

...

Celia

8 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Karma

8 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

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.

upvoted 0 times

Eric

11 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Margo

12 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Skye

12 months ago

B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nickolas

12 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

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.

upvoted 0 times

Tora

11 months ago

C: I think quantifying the risk helps the directors make informed decisions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Buddy

12 months ago

B: But the probability is so low, it's almost negligible.

upvoted 0 times

...

Markus

12 months ago

A: I agree, any chance of a meltdown is too risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

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.

upvoted 0 times

Janella

1 year ago

C: I agree, the directors should have a solid evacuation plan in place regardless of the probability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Misty

1 year ago

B: I disagree, even a small probability of a major nuclear disaster is concerning.

upvoted 0 times

...

Janna

1 year ago

A: The probability is so low as to be ignored.

upvoted 0 times

...

Virgina

1 year 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.

upvoted 0 times

Adell

1 year ago

B: Maybe they could invest in more safety measures to reduce the risk even further.

upvoted 0 times

...

Svetlana

1 year ago

A: They should definitely have a plan in place to mitigate that small chance of a disaster.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kathrine

1 year ago

But does a 0.2% probability really provide enough information?

upvoted 0 times

...

Milly

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.

upvoted 0 times

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.

upvoted 0 times

...