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

PMI-RMP Exam - Topic 9 Question 67 Discussion

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?
A) A request to increase project earnings
B) A request to increase project resources
C) A challenge to stakeholder thresholds
D) A challenge to the project investment

PMI-RMP Exam - Topic 9 Question 67 Discussion

Actual exam question for PMI's PMI-RMP exam
Question #: 67
Topic #: 9
[All PMI-RMP Questions]

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Cyndy at Nov 25, 2023, 01:06 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium PMI-RMP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Doug
8 months ago
I think it's more about challenging the project investment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francine
8 months ago
Definitely a request to increase project earnings!
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
9 months ago
Wait, how can they be sure Field 2 has twice as much gold?
upvoted 0 times
...
William
9 months ago
But what about the environmental impact?
upvoted 0 times
...
Suzan
9 months ago
Sounds like a solid plan to boost profits!
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
9 months ago
I remember discussing how changes in project scope can challenge stakeholder thresholds. But in this case, it seems more focused on profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alberto
9 months ago
This reminds me of a practice question we did about project scope changes. I feel like it aligns more with increasing project earnings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Myong
9 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Golda
10 months ago
I think the risk manager is suggesting a request to increase project earnings since adding Field 2 could boost profitability significantly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryl
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dolores
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dean
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lewis
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylou
10 months ago
This seems like a straightforward GDPR question. I'll carefully read through the details and think about the different lawful bases under GDPR.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maybelle
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenna
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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?
upvoted 0 times
Aliza
1 year ago
Expanding the project scope to a more lucrative area makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pete
1 year ago
It's a strategic move to maximize profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kate
1 year ago
The risk manager is trying to increase project earnings by including Field 2.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Angella
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolland
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is suggesting a change to the project scope, so option C makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Christa
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
Lucille
1 year ago
Yes, Option A seems like the best choice to maximize the project's profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glendora
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is describing a request to increase project earnings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimbery
1 year ago
I agree, an 80% increase in profitability is definitely worth considering.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tanja
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Richelle
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
Alisha
1 year ago
Yes, the risk manager is requesting to increase project resources.
upvoted 0 times
...
Junita
1 year ago
But wouldn't that also mean we need more resources for the project?
upvoted 0 times
...
Naomi
1 year ago
B: I agree, it could significantly increase our profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorita
1 year ago
I agree, it could significantly increase our profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leslee
1 year ago
A: We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittney
1 year ago
B: Agreed, it could significantly increase our profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mona
1 year ago
A: We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
1 year ago
We should definitely consider including Field 2 in the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tayna
1 year ago
But wouldn't it also mean taking on more risk by expanding the scope of the project?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kanisha
1 year ago
I agree with Hershel, including Field 2 will definitely boost the project's profitability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hershel
1 year ago
I think the risk manager is describing a request to increase project earnings.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel