Which of the following statements is true regarding how the scope of a consulting engagement should be established?

Question

Options

• AThe engagement client should be able to determine the scope to be applied to the engagement
• BThe internal auditor should establish a scope that does not impair her objectivity
• CAny attempts by the engagement client to limit the scope should be considered a scope limitation
• DThe scope should include reviewing the effectiveness of the internal control environment

• A
  81% (48)
• B
  5% (3)
• C
  10% (6)
• D
  3% (2)

Explanation

Option A is correct because consulting engagements are advisory services performed at the request of the engagement client - unlike assurance engagements, where the internal auditor independently determines scope to protect objectivity. Per IIA Standards, the client defines what they need help with, and the internal auditor's role is to deliver that service, not impose a scope.

Why the distractors fail:

• B is wrong on the premise: in a consulting engagement, the client establishes scope, not the internal auditor. While objectivity still matters, the IA doesn't unilaterally control scope here.
• C confuses consulting with assurance. In assurance engagements, client-imposed scope restrictions are reportable limitations. In consulting, the client defining a narrow scope is completely normal - that's just how consulting works.
• D is too prescriptive. Consulting engagements vary widely (training, process design, risk workshops, etc.) and need not always include an internal control effectiveness review; scope depends entirely on the client's stated need.

Memory tip: Think "CONSULT = Client Controls Scope." The key distinction on the exam is consulting vs. assurance - flip the two and every answer becomes the opposite. When you see "consulting engagement," the client is in the driver's seat.

No community discussion yet for this question.