All of the following statements about acceptance sampling are true except:

Question

Options

• AAcceptance sampling plans do not directly control the quality of a series of lots; they instead
• BAcceptance sampling plans are never effective at rejecting nonconforming units as 100
• CAcceptance sampling plans are not very effective for inspecting small lots of custom-made
• DAcceptance sampling plans are beneficial when the cost of inspection is high and the resulting
• EAcceptance sampling plans are necessary when destructive inspections are required.

• A
  12% (7)
• B
  75% (45)
• C
  8% (5)
• D
  3% (2)
• E
  2% (1)

Explanation

Option B is the false statement because it uses the absolute word "never," which makes it incorrect. In real-world conditions, 100% inspection is subject to inspector fatigue, boredom, and human error - meaning acceptance sampling can sometimes outperform 100% inspection in practice. The claim that acceptance sampling is "never as effective" overstates the case.

The other options are all true: (A) is correct because acceptance sampling only governs accept/reject decisions - it incentivizes suppliers but doesn't directly control lot quality; (C) is true because small, custom lots are better served by 100% inspection since each unit may be unique and lot sizes are too small for sampling to be meaningful; (D) is true because sampling is economically rational when per-unit inspection cost is high; and (E) is true because destructive testing (e.g., tensile strength, taste testing) makes 100% inspection physically impossible, making sampling necessary.

Memory tip: On "all except" questions, watch for absolute language (words like "never," "always," "completely"). In quality management, absolutes are almost always the wrong answer - here, "never" in option B is your red flag.

No community discussion yet for this question.