MENU
A company has a project whose objective is to extract gold reserves from Field 1. However, another field closest to the company. Field 2, which has a higher probability of having twice as much gold reserves than Field 1. The risk manager requests the board of Directors to include Field 2 under the scope of the current project by management of change because the project's profitability will increase by 80%.
What type of request is the risk manager describing?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium PMI-RMP Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
43 comments · newest first
DO
Doug
11 months ago
I think it's more about challenging the project investment.
FR
Francine
12 months ago
Definitely a request to increase project earnings!
HU
Huey
12 months ago
Wait, how can they be sure Field 2 has twice as much gold?
WI
William
1 year ago
But what about the environmental impact?
SU
Suzan
1 year ago
Sounds like a solid plan to boost profits!
AL
Allene
1 year ago
I remember discussing how changes in project scope can challenge stakeholder thresholds. But in this case, it seems more focused on profitability.
AL
Alberto
1 year ago
This reminds me of a practice question we did about project scope changes. I feel like it aligns more with increasing project earnings.
MY
Myong
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like it could also be a request to increase project resources since they want to expand the scope of the project.
GO
Golda
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is suggesting a request to increase project earnings since adding Field 2 could boost profitability significantly.
CH
Cheryl
1 year ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'd want to dig deeper into the stakeholder thresholds and investment criteria to determine if this is a valid challenge or just a straightforward request to expand the project scope. The 80% profitability increase is enticing, but I'd need more details.
DO
Dolores
1 year ago
Okay, let me think this through. If the risk manager is proposing to include Field 2 to boost profitability, then I'd say this is a request to increase project earnings. The key is understanding if the higher gold reserves in Field 2 outweigh any additional costs or risks.
DE
Dean
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Is this considered a request to increase project resources or a challenge to the original investment? The wording about "management of change" has me unsure of the exact nature of the request.
LE
Lewis
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward request to increase the project's profitability by expanding the scope to include a more promising field. I'd focus on understanding the risk implications and whether the 80% increase in profitability justifies the change.
MA
Marylou
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward GDPR question. I'll carefully read through the details and think about the different lawful bases under GDPR.
DE
Denny
1 year ago
Ah, I see! Setting stage/global/Static_CONTENT_SYMLINK to true looks like the best option here. That should allow us to skip the static content processing and just symlink the assets, which should be much faster.
HU
Huey
1 year ago
Okay, I've got an idea. Option D seems like the way to go - modifying the urgency table to make the notable events less urgent. That way we can keep the search criteria the same but just adjust the severity level. Seems like a good balance.
MA
Maybelle
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a little confused on this one. I know Studio has a lot of source control features, but I'm not sure which ones are also available in the Git Repository. I'll have to think this through carefully.
LE
Lenna
1 year ago
I remember that retained earnings adjustments can reflect prior period errors or changes in accounting principles, but I'm not entirely sure how to calculate it here.
EZ
Ezekiel
1 year ago
If this was a real exam, I'd give you a hard time for trying to smuggle in a gold pun. Nice try, but let's keep it professional, shall we?
AL
Aliza
1 year ago
Expanding the project scope to a more lucrative area makes sense.
PE
Pete
1 year ago
It's a strategic move to maximize profitability.
KA
Kate
1 year ago
The risk manager is trying to increase project earnings by including Field 2.
AN
Angella
2 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure this is a challenge to the project investment. The risk manager is clearly proposing a change to the project scope, so I'd say option C is the best answer.
SH
Shannan
1 year ago
True, it could affect project earnings as well. But the main focus seems to be on changing the scope, so I still lean towards option C.
AM
Ammie
1 year ago
But wouldn't including Field 2 also impact project earnings? Maybe it's a request to increase project earnings, so option A could also be correct.
RO
Rolland
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is suggesting a change to the project scope, so option C makes sense.
CH
Christa
2 years ago
Wow, 80% increase in profitability? Sign me up! This has to be a request to increase project earnings. Option A is the way to go, no doubt about it.
LU
Lucille
1 year ago
Yes, Option A seems like the best choice to maximize the project's profitability.
GL
Glendora
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is describing a request to increase project earnings.
KI
Kimbery
1 year ago
I agree, an 80% increase in profitability is definitely worth considering.
TA
Tanja
2 years ago
I think the risk manager is challenging the stakeholder thresholds. Increasing the project's profitability by 80% is a significant change that could raise concerns among the stakeholders. Option C seems like the right answer here.
RI
Richelle
2 years ago
This is a clear-cut case of a request to increase project resources. By including Field 2, the company is expanding the scope of the project, which aligns with option B.
AL
Alisha
1 year ago
Yes, the risk manager is requesting to increase project resources.
JU
Junita
1 year ago
But wouldn't that also mean we need more resources for the project?
NA
Naomi
1 year ago
B: I agree, it could significantly increase our profitability.
LO
Lorita
1 year ago
I agree, it could significantly increase our profitability.
LE
Leslee
1 year ago
A: We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
BR
Brittney
1 year ago
B: Agreed, it could significantly increase our profitability.
MO
Mona
2 years ago
A: We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
GL
Glory
2 years ago
We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
TA
Tayna
2 years ago
But wouldn't it also mean taking on more risk by expanding the scope of the project?
KA
Kanisha
2 years ago
I agree with Hershel, including Field 2 will definitely boost the project's profitability.
HE
Hershel
2 years ago
I think the risk manager is describing a request to increase project earnings.