Free Praxis Business-Education-Content-Knowledge-5101 Exam Questions
Absolute Free Business-Education-Content-Knowledge-5101 Exam Practice for Comprehensive Preparation
-
Praxis Business-Education-Content-Knowledge-5101 Exam Questions
-
Provided By: Praxis
- Exam: Praxis Business Education Content Knowledge (5101)
- Certification: Praxis Certifications
-
Total Questions: 122
-
Updated On: May 23, 2025
-
Rated: 4.9 |
-
Online Users: 244
-
Question 1
-
Which of the following does NOT constitute an appropriate technology requirement for virtualaudits between the auditee and audit team?
Answer: C
-
Which of the following does NOT constitute an appropriate technology requirement for virtualaudits between the auditee and audit team?
-
Question 2
-
Which of the following types of interviews should be conducted to ensure that assessments by key people are
included in the hiring process?
Answer: C
-
Which of the following types of interviews should be conducted to ensure that assessments by key people are
included in the hiring process?
-
Question 3
-
Which of the following examples depicts frequent analysis?
Answer: A
-
Which of the following examples depicts frequent analysis?
-
Question 4
-
Which of the following is the best example of eminent domain?
Answer: A
-
Which of the following is the best example of eminent domain?
-
Question 5
-
Scenario 8:Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company
known for its innovative solutions andcommitment to excellence. It specializes in custom software
solutions, development, design, testing, maintenance, and consulting,covering both mobile apps
and web development. Recently, the company underwent an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of its artificial intelligence management system AIMS against ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit team engaged with the auditee to discuss their findings and observations during the
audit's final phases. After evaluating theevidence, the audit team presented their audit findings to
InnovateSoft, highlighting the identified nonconformities.
Upon receiving the audit findings, InnovateSoft accepted the conclusions but expressed concerns
about some findings inaccuratelyreflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In
response, the company provided new evidence and additionalinformation to alter the audit
conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit
teamleader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for
the nonconformities. Therefore, thecertification body issued a certification recommendation
conditional upon the filing of corrective action plans without a prior visit.
InnovateSoft accepted the decision of the certification body. The top management of the company
also sought suggestions from theaudit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit
team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering acollaborative effort between the
auditors and InnovateSoft.During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics to enhance
transparency. They clarified to InnovateSoft that the auditevidence was based on a sample,
acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading
findingswere discussed to provide a structured overview of nonconformities. The certification body's
process for handling nonconformities,including potential consequences, guided InnovateSoft on
corrective actions. The time frame for presenting a plan for correction was
communicated, emphasizing urgency. Insights into the certification bodys post-audit activities were
provided, ensuring ongoing support.
Lastly, the audit team briefed InnovateSoft on complaint and appeal handling.
InnovateSoft submitted the action plans for each nonconformity separately, describing only the
detected issues and the correctiveactions planned to address the detected nonconformities.
However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days setby the certification
body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected
challengesencountered during the compilation of the action plans.
Was the audit team leaders attitude appropriate regarding the new evidence provided by the
company?
Answer: B
-
Scenario 8:Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company
known for its innovative solutions andcommitment to excellence. It specializes in custom software
solutions, development, design, testing, maintenance, and consulting,covering both mobile apps
and web development. Recently, the company underwent an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of its artificial intelligence management system AIMS against ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit team engaged with the auditee to discuss their findings and observations during the
audit's final phases. After evaluating theevidence, the audit team presented their audit findings to
InnovateSoft, highlighting the identified nonconformities.
Upon receiving the audit findings, InnovateSoft accepted the conclusions but expressed concerns
about some findings inaccuratelyreflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In
response, the company provided new evidence and additionalinformation to alter the audit
conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit
teamleader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for
the nonconformities. Therefore, thecertification body issued a certification recommendation
conditional upon the filing of corrective action plans without a prior visit.
InnovateSoft accepted the decision of the certification body. The top management of the company
also sought suggestions from theaudit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit
team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering acollaborative effort between the
auditors and InnovateSoft.During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics to enhance
transparency. They clarified to InnovateSoft that the auditevidence was based on a sample,
acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading
findingswere discussed to provide a structured overview of nonconformities. The certification body's
process for handling nonconformities,including potential consequences, guided InnovateSoft on
corrective actions. The time frame for presenting a plan for correction was
communicated, emphasizing urgency. Insights into the certification bodys post-audit activities were
provided, ensuring ongoing support.
Lastly, the audit team briefed InnovateSoft on complaint and appeal handling.
InnovateSoft submitted the action plans for each nonconformity separately, describing only the
detected issues and the correctiveactions planned to address the detected nonconformities.
However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days setby the certification
body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected
challengesencountered during the compilation of the action plans.
Was the audit team leaders attitude appropriate regarding the new evidence provided by the
company?