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

CIMAPRO19-P03-1 Exam - Topic 4 Question 39 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. and B) The probability is so low as to be ignored. and D) The calculation of a precise probability demonstrates that the engineers who conducted the inspection are experts in their field.
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.

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

Actual exam question for CIMA's CIMAPRO19-P03-1 exam
Question #: 39
Topic #: 4
[All CIMAPRO19-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, 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Marcos
10 months ago
But what if that 0.2% happens? That's a huge deal!
upvoted 0 times
...
Kate
10 months ago
Totally agree with C! They’ll use that to cover themselves.
upvoted 0 times
...
Curt
10 months ago
Really? 0.2% seems low, but can we trust those numbers?
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
11 months ago
I think A makes the most sense. No risk is acceptable here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eladia
11 months ago
0.2% is still a risk, though!
upvoted 0 times
...
Caprice
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
1 year 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
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Skye
1 year ago
B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
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
1 year ago
C: I think quantifying the risk helps the directors make informed decisions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buddy
1 year ago
B: But the probability is so low, it's almost negligible.
upvoted 0 times
...
Markus
1 year 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
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Norah
1 year ago
B) The probability is so low as to be ignored.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chau
1 year ago
I agree, it helps the company assess the potential consequences.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kate
1 year ago
I think quantifying the risk is important for decision-making.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel