CEO: As required by Company Law, we employ Independent External Auditors to audit our financial statements, but surprisingly, there is good reason to believe that the financial reports made by these auditors after their scrutiny of our financial statements are often inaccurate. Several times when the reports by these Independent Auditors were scrutinized by our company’s reliable accounts officer, there were a number of grave discrepancies.
Now the reasoning of the CEO is that when the reports by these Independent Auditors were scrutinized by his company’s reliable accounts officer, there were a number of grave discrepancies. We need to find out the assumption.
Prethink - The CEO is confirmed that his company’s reliable accounts officer is correct. Let us negate this what if the company account officer is incorrect, then the whole reasoning of CEO will collapse.The CEO’s reasoning relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. An absence of discrepancies in the financial reports cannot be due to a deliberate justification of inaccurate figures. - This cant be assumption. Out of scope.
B. A scrutiny of the financial reports by the company’s accounts officer is unlikely to be less accurate than that of the Independent Auditors. - This is exactly what our prethinking is.
C. Auditors, independent or otherwise, can be trained so that they scrutinize financial statements more carefully than they usually do. - CEO told about inaccurate result not about the training requirement. Out of scope.
D. The discrepancies in the financial reports made by Independent Auditors do not result from the lack of pressure the Independent Auditors enjoy as compared to company accounts officers, whose performance is monitored. -> This is no discussion of pressure in the statement so discarded.
E. The analytical criteria that Independent Auditors use in auditing financial statements differ from the criteria that the company accounts officers use. -> CEO told about inaccuracy, there is no discussion about the criteria