The following Business Case is constructed properly. "During most of 2008 Division 16 experienced a 4.2% product return rate versus a target of nearly no returns. This costs the company a whole…

Question

Options

• ATrue
• BFalse

• A
  21% (8)
• B
  79% (30)

Explanation

Option B is correct because the business case statement contains vague, non-quantified language that makes it improperly constructed. A well-formed business case must use precise, measurable terms throughout - two phrases here fail that standard: "nearly no returns" (the target should be a specific figure, e.g., "0.5% or less") and "a whole bunch of money" (the financial impact must be quantified in actual dollars or percentages to be actionable).

Option A is wrong because the statement looks credible on the surface - it has a timeframe, a named division, and a real metric (4.2%) - but those correct elements don't excuse the vague language elsewhere. Examiners often include partially correct statements to test whether you catch every element.

Memory tip: Think of a business case like a legal contract - every term must be defined precisely. If you can't measure it, it doesn't belong. Flag words like "nearly," "about," "a lot," or "a bunch" as automatic red flags for an improperly constructed business case.

No community discussion yet for this question.