RSA Exam 050-11-CARSANWLN01 Topic 5 Question 62 Discussion

Actual exam question for RSA's 050-11-CARSANWLN01 exam

Question #: 62
Topic #: 5

[All 050-11-CARSANWLN01 Questions]

Which statement about Health and Wellness Alarm Suppression is false?

ASuppression schedules can be defined for individual rules

BSuppression schedules can be defined for entire policies

CSuppression schedules can be applied to out-of-the-box policies

DMultiple suppression schedules can be defined

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

by Geoffrey at Oct 07, 2023, 02:01 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 050-11-CARSANWLN01 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Vonda

2 months ago

C, definitely C. I mean, come on, 'out-of-the-box'? That's like asking for trouble. Suppression schedules and out-of-the-box policies? Nah, that's a hard pass.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hubert

2 months ago

I'm just gonna flip a coin on this one. Health and Wellness Alarm Suppression? More like Health and Wellness Alarm Confusion, am I right?

upvoted 0 times

Francesco

19 days ago

I'll go with D) Multiple suppression schedules can be defined

upvoted 0 times

...

Jesusa

1 months ago

I'm not sure, maybe it's C) Suppression schedules can be applied to out-of-the-box policies

upvoted 0 times

...

Karan

1 months ago

No, I believe it's A) Suppression schedules can be defined for individual rules

upvoted 0 times

...

Kenia

1 months ago

I think the answer is B) Suppression schedules can be defined for entire policies

upvoted 0 times

...

Minna

2 months ago

Ooh, this is a tricky one. I'm gonna go with C just to be different. Who knows, maybe the exam writers are trying to trick us!

upvoted 0 times

Kenny

22 days ago

I agree with you, C seems like the tricky one. Suppression schedules can't be applied to out-of-the-box policies.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shay

1 months ago

I'm not sure, but I think D is the false statement. Multiple suppression schedules can't be defined.

upvoted 0 times

...

Judy

1 months ago

I think A is false, suppression schedules can't be defined for individual rules.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yoko

3 months ago

A, B, and D all sound plausible, but C just seems too good to be true. That's the one that's gotta be false.

upvoted 0 times

Portia

1 months ago

I'm leaning towards D being the false statement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Truman

2 months ago

I'm not sure, but I think A is the false statement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristal

3 months ago

I think it's possible to define suppression schedules for entire policies, so maybe B is false.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fausto

3 months ago

I agree, C does sound too good to be true.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pete

3 months ago

D seems like the right choice to me. Multiple suppression schedules are totally a thing. Gotta cover all your bases, you know?

upvoted 0 times

Chantay

3 months ago

Yes, it's always better to be safe than sorry when it comes to health and wellness alarm suppression.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lizbeth

3 months ago

I agree, having multiple suppression schedules is important to ensure all scenarios are covered.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristen

3 months ago

I think the correct answer is C. Suppression schedules can't be applied to out-of-the-box policies. That's just common sense, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Gilbert

3 months ago

I believe the false statement is D, as only one suppression schedule can be defined.

upvoted 0 times

...

Reynalda

4 months ago

I agree with Mindy, suppression schedules can't be applied to out-of-the-box policies.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mindy

4 months ago

I think the false statement is C.

upvoted 0 times

...