Free PMI-RMP practice test: 30 questions with answers

The Delphi technique gathers expert input anonymously over several rounds, which limits dominance and anchoring. A brainstorm led by the senior engineer invites domination, sponsor-led interviews add the sponsor's bias, and reusing an old register does not identify risks specific to this bridge.

Assumption and constraint analysis examines whether the assumptions and constraints behind the plan are valid, and it surfaces risks that would arise if they are wrong. Performing it at closure, replacing a breakdown structure, or treating assumptions as facts are all incorrect uses of the technique.

A trigger is an observable sign that a specific risk is occurring or about to occur, and reduced supplier capacity directly signals late delivery. Price, drawing counts and change request figures may matter for other purposes but are not direct signs of this particular delay.

A threshold is an agreed boundary, and once it is crossed the plan requires escalation, which does not depend on the owner's view. Waiting, moving the limit after the fact, or dropping the risk each bypass the agreed governance.

A usable register entry records what the risk is, why it exists, who owns it, where it stands and how it will be addressed, which supports analysis and monitoring. A title with a name, budget and contract data, or a copied appetite statement, leaves out the information needed.

The register records each identified risk with its description, owner, and triggers or early warning signs. Scale definitions belong in the risk management plan, and the organization's appetite statement is a governance document that the register may reference but does not contain.

Urgency, often considered together with proximity, reflects how soon a response is needed and is a qualitative prioritization factor. Expected monetary value and simulation results are quantitative measures, and the number of stakeholders mentioning a risk says nothing about its effect on objectives.

Qualitative analysis prioritizes risks through assessment of probability, impact and other attributes, while quantitative analysis numerically models effects on objectives. The sequencing, EMV and universal-requirement statements each mislabel the techniques or overstate when quantitative analysis is needed.

Expected monetary value equals probability multiplied by impact, so 0.20 multiplied by 50,000 gives 10,000. The other figures result from miscalculating the product, such as using the wrong probability or adding figures instead of multiplying them.

A Monte Carlo simulation produces a distribution of outcomes, and the probability of meeting each date is what conveys schedule confidence. The baseline date alone hides the spread of outcomes, while owner rankings and a qualitative matrix are not simulation outputs.

Monte Carlo simulation and expected monetary value both model the numerical effects of risk on objectives, so they are quantitative. The probability and impact matrix and the urgency assessment are qualitative ranking techniques that rely on scales and judgment.

A tornado diagram from sensitivity analysis ranks inputs by their effect on an outcome, with the most influential at the top. Burndown, control and vendor-count histograms do not show how sensitive a result is to its inputs.

Risk appetite describes the broad amount and type of risk an organization is willing to pursue or retain. Risk tolerance is the variation around a specific objective, a threshold is a boundary that triggers action, and a risk register is a document, so none of them states the organization's overall willingness to take risk.

Lessons learned show which risk events recur on similar work and how responses performed, which tailors the strategy to real evidence. Budget totals do not reveal risk drivers, copying registers unchanged ignores the new context, and manager ratings are not a basis for risk strategy.

Risk appetite and thresholds should be confirmed with the sponsor early so that identification and analysis apply the same limits. Waiting for the register reverses that logic, individual thresholds lead to inconsistent decisions, and reusing old thresholds ignores the new project's objectives.

The plan sets the approach used across the whole project, including the scales and matrix used for scoring. The register holds the details of individual risks such as their scores, owners, responses and status, so the other options belong in the register.

Leading risk activities means engaging stakeholders in a structured way so that differing risk attitudes are surfaced and reconciled with shared definitions. Deferring to one senior stakeholder, bypassing the others, or excluding stakeholder views each undermine that engagement.

An environment assessment looks at external and internal conditions, including regulatory changes, that can create threats or opportunities. The meeting schedule, past campaign cost and vendor office location do not shape the project's risk exposure in the same way an expected legal change does.

Performance data and trends should be analyzed and used to update risk entries and ratings, which keeps the register current. Waiting, closing the risk because of vendor ownership, or raising appetite to accept the trend each avoid the required reassessment.

A secondary risk is a new risk that arises as a direct result of a risk response. Residual risk is the remaining original risk, accepted risks are a response choice, and emerging risks become visible later, whereas this one follows directly from the chosen response.

Monitoring project risk levels involves comparing trend and variance data with thresholds and updating scores when information changes. Rewriting the plan at every meeting or changing the scoring method each month are not monitoring activities and would undermine consistent tracking.

Closing irrelevant risks and recording lessons belongs in the risk register and the lessons learned register. The charter, contracts, enterprise policy and other plans are not changed by routine risk closure, so updating them here is not the expected action.

A risk audit identifies gaps between planned and actual responses, and the right action is to record them and correct the execution. Removing risks hides exposure, changing appetite to match practice reverses governance, and excluding the project team from ratings is not an improvement.

Reserve analysis compares reserve used and remaining with the remaining risk exposure and progress, and here spending is ahead of progress, which signals a shortfall risk. Releasing reserve without review, treating early spending as success or dropping the reserve from tracking each misread the signal.

Buying insurance shifts the financial impact of the threat to another party, which is transfer. Design changes that lower likelihood or consequence are mitigation, removing the need for the component is avoidance, and holding a reserve is acceptance.

Exploit means acting to make an opportunity certain, which is what the engineer assignment does. Enhance only raises the chance or size of the benefit, share hands part of the benefit to another party, and accept takes no action, so none matches the described response.

A contingency plan is executed when a trigger shows that the risk has occurred, and a fallback plan is used if the contingency plan proves insufficient. The other statements describe preventive work, routine scheduling or a register substitute, none of which is a fallback plan.

A response should be justified by its benefit relative to the risk's expected value, so the team should show the cost mismatch and choose a more cost-effective option. Implementing blindly, dropping all responses or waiting until the event occurs each ignore sound response selection.

A response that changes schedule and scope alters the project baseline, so it should be processed through change control before implementation. Approving it only in the register, starting work first or skipping the scope review each bypass that governance.

Contingency reserves are held for identified risks that have planned responses, while management reserves address unidentified risks and are controlled at a higher level. The reversed definitions and the claim that contingency reserves are never used are both incorrect.