CIMA Exam CIMAPRO19-P03-1 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

Miles

1 months 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

3 days 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

6 days 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

11 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Nickolas

16 days 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 months 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

4 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Buddy

6 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Markus

7 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Alease

2 months 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

20 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Misty

1 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Janna

1 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Virgina

2 months 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 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Svetlana

2 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Kathrine

2 months ago

But does a 0.2% probability really provide enough information?

upvoted 0 times

...

Milly

2 months 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 months 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

...