Quantitative Risk Assessments have the following advantages over qualitative risk assessments:

Question

Options

• AThey are objective and can express risk / cost in real numbers
• BThey are subjective and can be completed more quickly
• CThey are objective and express risk / cost in approximates
• DThey are subjective and can express risk /cost in real numbers

• A
  78% (28)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  14% (5)

Explanation

Quantitative Risk Assessments are objective - they use measurable data (historical records, monetary values, statistical models) to express risk and cost in concrete, real numbers like dollar amounts or probabilities, which is exactly what option A describes. Option B is wrong on both counts: quantitative assessments are objective (not subjective), and they actually take more time and resources than qualitative ones. Option C is wrong because quantitative assessments produce precise real numbers, not approximates - approximations and ranges are the hallmark of qualitative methods (e.g., "high/medium/low"). Option D flips the objectivity: expressing risk in real numbers is a quantitative trait, but "subjective" belongs to qualitative assessments, which rely on expert judgment and opinion. Memory tip: Think of the word "quanti" - like quantity - meaning you can count it, measure it, and put an exact dollar figure on it; that's your clue that quantitative = objective + real numbers.

No community discussion yet for this question.