mediumMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: A retail company is identifying risks in its…
A retail company is identifying risks in its supply chain. Which approach is most effective for identifying previously unknown risks?
⚠ Common exam trap
It's easy for candidates to choose 'Review of standard risk checklists' because it seems efficient and structured, but CRISC tests the understanding that checklists are inherently limited to known risks and cannot identify novel or previously unencountered threats.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Scenario analysis with supply chain partners
Scenario analysis with supply chain partners is most effective for identifying previously unknown risks because it leverages collaborative brainstorming and 'what-if' thinking to uncover emergent threats that are not captured by historical data or static checklists. This approach is particularly valuable in supply chain contexts where interdependencies, third-party vulnerabilities, and novel disruptions (e.g., a new cyberattack vector targeting a logistics provider) can surface only through joint exploration of hypothetical events. It aligns with the CRISC emphasis on proactive risk identification beyond known patterns.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Scenario analysis with supply chain partners
Why this is correct
Scenario analysis with supply chain partners surfaces previously unknown risks by combining each partner's operational knowledge with hypothetical disruption events, exposing interdependencies and single points of failure that internal reviews miss. This satisfies the stem's requirement to identify risks beyond those already catalogued.
- ✗
Employee surveys
Why it's wrong here
Surveys collect opinions from staff already inside existing processes, so they surface concerns the organisation has already framed. Scenario analysis and external threat intelligence probe beyond known assumptions. Surveys would be correct for gauging risk awareness or control effectiveness across a workforce, not for uncovering risks nobody has yet considered.
- ✗
Financial audit reports
Why it's wrong here
Financial audit reports examine historical transactions and controls, so they identify risks already realised or recorded. Horizon scanning and external data sources reveal emerging, unrecorded threats. Audit reports would be appropriate for validating control compliance or detecting fraud patterns, not for discovering supply chain risks with no financial trail yet.
- ✗
Review of standard risk checklists
Why it's wrong here
Checklists enumerate risks already catalogued, so they cannot reveal anything outside that list. Techniques such as scenario analysis and brainstorming deliberately explore unlisted exposures. Checklists would be correct for ensuring consistent, repeatable coverage of known risks during a routine assessment, not for identifying previously unknown ones.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CRISC question is part of Courseiva's 1,062-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CRISC practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CRISC exam.