There was a fire in a branch of the company Midwest Insurance. The fire department quickly arrived at the scene and could extinguish the fire before it spread and burned down the entire premises…

Question

Options

• AMelted backup tapes
• BBurned computer systems
• CBurned documents
• DWater damage due to the fire extinguishers

• A
  8% (3)
• B
  5% (2)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  85% (33)

Explanation

D is correct because water damage from fire extinguishers is indirect - it results from the response to the fire, not from the fire's flames or heat itself. The firefighters' intervention introduced a secondary hazard (water) that caused its own damage independent of the fire's direct destruction.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (Melted backup tapes) - heat from the fire directly melted them; this is direct damage.
• B (Burned computer systems) - the server was destroyed by the fire's flames directly; clearly direct damage.
• C (Burned documents) - fire directly consumed the documents; direct damage.

Memory tip: Think of indirect damage as "what wouldn't have happened if the fire had been stopped instantly with zero firefighting effort." Water damage only exists because of the extinguishing effort - the fire didn't spray water, the responders did. If something was damaged by the fire's own heat/flame/smoke, it's direct; if it was damaged by the countermeasures, it's indirect.

No community discussion yet for this question.