A non-human threat for computer systems is a flood. In which situation is a flood always a relevant threat?

Question

Options

• AIf the risk analysis has not been carried out.
• BWhen computer systems are kept in a cellar below ground level.
• CWhen the computer systems are not insured.
• DWhen the organization is located near a river.

• A
  5% (1)
• B
  73% (16)
• C
  9% (2)
• D
  14% (3)

Explanation

Option B is correct because storing computer systems in a cellar below ground level makes flooding always a relevant threat - water naturally flows downward, so any flooding event (rain, burst pipes, rising groundwater) will directly endanger equipment at that location regardless of other factors.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because skipping a risk analysis doesn't create or increase a physical threat - floods exist as a threat based on location and environment, not on whether you've documented them.
• C is wrong because insurance status has no bearing on whether a threat is physically present; lack of insurance affects financial recovery, not threat relevance.
• D is a tempting distractor, but proximity to a river only increases flood probability - it doesn't make flooding always relevant. Rivers don't always flood, and many other flood sources (plumbing failures, storms) exist regardless of river proximity.

Memory tip: Think of it as a physics problem - water flows down, so a below-ground location is structurally vulnerable to flooding from any source, making it an inherent and constant risk rather than a conditional one.

No community discussion yet for this question.