C_ARSUM Ariba Supplier Management Practice Question
A supplier management administrator is configuring a new supplier qualification project template. The business wants suppliers to be automatically disqualified if they fail a mandatory anti-bribery compliance question, regardless of their scores on other sections. Which configuration should the administrator apply to enforce this behavior?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is assuming that a heavy negative weight equals disqualification, when only a configured disqualifying response guarantees an automatic fail.
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
✓
Set the anti-bribery question as a disqualifying response with a failing threshold.
A disqualifying response with a failing threshold creates a hard gate that overrides aggregate scoring, ensuring a failed mandatory compliance question automatically disqualifies the supplier. Weighting, required flags, or optional modules only influence or defer the decision and cannot guarantee the absolute behavior the business demands.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Set the anti-bribery question as a disqualifying response with a failing threshold.
Why this is correct
Configuring the anti-bribery question as a disqualifying response with a failing threshold causes the system to automatically fail the supplier when the specified answer is given, independent of other section scores. This is exactly the gate behavior the business requires: a single mandatory compliance failure overrides the aggregate score and disqualifies the supplier.
- ✗
Mark the anti-bribery question as required and rely on the approver to reject manually.
Why it's wrong here
Marking a question as required only ensures it is answered; it does not trigger automatic disqualification. Relying on a human approver introduces delay and inconsistency, contradicting the requirement for automatic enforcement. The scenario explicitly wants the system to disqualify without manual intervention, so this configuration is insufficient.
- ✗
Assign a high negative weight to the anti-bribery question in the scoring model.
Why it's wrong here
A high negative weight reduces the total score but does not guarantee disqualification. A supplier could still pass if other sections score well enough to offset the penalty. The business wants an absolute gate, not a score adjustment, so weighting alone cannot enforce the required automatic disqualification.
- ✗
Move the anti-bribery question into a separate optional module that is not scored.
Why it's wrong here
Making the compliance question optional and unscored removes any enforcement mechanism entirely. Suppliers could skip it or answer freely without consequence, which is the opposite of the business intent. The requirement demands a mandatory gate that can disqualify, so isolating the question in an optional module fails the objective.
About these practice questions
This C_ARSUM question is part of Courseiva's 250-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 and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official SAP exam blueprint
This C_ARSUM practice question is part of Courseiva's free SAP 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 C_ARSUM exam.