Free PMP practice questions

A project depends on a specialised soldering process that the team has never performed, and analysis shows a real chance the in-house attempt will fail and delay the schedule. A certified subcontractor will perform the same work under a fixed-price contract that makes the vendor liable for rework. Which risk response does engaging that subcontractor represent?

• ATransfer, because a fixed-price contract shifts the financial consequence of the threat to a third party better able to bear it.check_circle Correct
• BMitigate, because the fixed-price contract reduces the probability that the soldering defect will occur on the project.
• CAvoid, because using a subcontractor removes the soldering scope and the associated threat from the project entirely.
• DAccept, because the team acknowledges the threat and relies on the subcontractor to deal with the outcome if it happens.

Why A is correct: Transfer moves the impact of a threat, together with ownership of the response, to a third party without eliminating the threat. A fixed-price contract with rework liability is a textbook transfer mechanism.

Why B is wrong: Mitigation lowers the probability or impact while the team retains ownership of the threat. Here ownership of the consequence, including rework liability, passes to a third party, so the response is transfer rather than mitigation.

Why C is wrong: Avoidance eliminates the threat, often by removing or changing the scope. The soldering work still happens and the threat still exists; it has simply been moved to a party better able to bear it, which is transfer.

Why D is wrong: Acceptance takes no proactive action to change exposure and is tempting because the team is no longer doing the work. Signing a contract that reassigns liability is a deliberate proactive action, so it is transfer.

During execution the project manager identifies an opportunity: a supplier has just released a component that could let the team deliver a key feature two weeks early and win an incentive bonus. The team lacks the skill to integrate it, but a partner firm has that expertise and would take an agreed slice of the bonus in return for doing the integration. Which response to the opportunity does this arrangement represent?

• AEnhance, because bringing in the partner increases the probability that the early-delivery opportunity will actually be realised.
• BShare, because ownership of the opportunity is allocated to a partner best able to capture the benefit, with the reward split between the parties.check_circle Correct
• CExploit, because the response is designed to make the early-delivery opportunity certain to be captured by the project.
• DAccept, because the team welcomes the opportunity but takes no action to pursue it beyond noting the possibility.

Why A is wrong: Enhance raises the probability or positive impact while the team keeps ownership. It is tempting because the partner does improve the odds, but ownership and the reward are being shared with a third party, which makes this share.

Why B is correct: Share is the opportunity response that assigns ownership to a third party better positioned to realise the upside, splitting the benefit. Bringing in a partner for an agreed slice of the bonus is exactly this.

Why C is wrong: Exploit seeks to make an opportunity certain and keeps the benefit wholly within the project. It is attractive because the goal is to secure the bonus, but the benefit is deliberately split with an external partner, so the response is share.

Why D is wrong: Acceptance takes no proactive step to pursue the upside. Engaging a partner under an agreed benefit split is a clear proactive action, so acceptance does not describe what has happened here.

A client has asked for a basic reporting dashboard with a small number of standard charts and no advanced analytics. The delivered dashboard is deliberately simple, yet it displays every figure accurately, refreshes on schedule, and never crashes. A reviewer complains that the product is low quality because it lacks the rich features of a premium analytics suite. How should the project manager most accurately characterise the dashboard?

• AIt is low grade because it has few features, and low grade means the deliverable has failed its quality requirements.
• BIt is low quality because a premium analytics suite would offer far more capability than this dashboard currently provides.
• CIt is low grade but high quality, because it meets the agreed requirements reliably despite offering only a modest feature set.check_circle Correct
• DIt is high grade but low quality, because the simple feature set cannot meet a demanding client without additional analytics.

Why A is wrong: This conflates grade with quality. Low grade is legitimate when few features are required, and it does not automatically mean poor quality, so treating the two as identical is the error the question targets.

Why B is wrong: Comparing against a richer product judges grade, not quality. It is tempting because more features feel better, but a product that meets its stated requirements accurately and reliably is high quality regardless of feature count.

Why C is correct: Grade reflects the level of features or characteristics; quality reflects conformance to requirements. A deliberately simple product that works accurately and reliably is low grade yet high quality, which is a fully acceptable outcome.

Why D is wrong: This inverts both terms. A deliberately simple product is low grade, not high grade, and reliably meeting the agreed requirements is high quality, so both halves of this statement are wrong.

A newly formed agile team is midway through its first two sprints and members keep interrupting one another in stand-ups, with two engineers openly disagreeing about who owns integration testing. Delivery has slowed and morale is dipping. Applying servant leadership, what should the project manager do FIRST?

• AFacilitate the team in agreeing a set of ground rules covering communication, decision-making, and how work is shared.check_circle Correct
• BAssign each disputed task to a named individual and publish a fixed responsibility list so the arguments stop immediately.
• CEscalate the conflict to the sponsor and ask for a ruling on which engineer should lead integration testing.
• DWait for the team to settle by itself over the coming sprints, since storming behaviour usually passes without intervention.

Why A is correct: The friction is typical of the storming stage, and a servant leader responds by helping the team surface and agree its own ground rules, which gives shared, durable norms the team owns rather than a manager's edict.

Why B is wrong: Imposing assignments is a command-and-control reflex that removes the self-organising team's ownership; it may quiet the symptom but does not address the missing agreement on how the team will work together.

Why C is wrong: Escalating a normal team-formation dispute is premature and undermines the team's ability to self-organise; the sponsor is not close enough to the work to make a better call than the team can.

Why D is wrong: Storming does often pass, but passive waiting while delivery and morale slide neglects the servant leader's duty to remove impediments and help the team reach performing sooner.

On a predictive infrastructure project, a capable developer tells the project manager privately that a recurring build-server outage is costing the whole team roughly a day each week, but nobody has raised it because they assume it is outside the team's control. What is the BEST action for a servant-leader project manager to take NEXT?

• AAdd the outage to the risk register as a low-priority item and revisit it at the next scheduled risk review.
• BTake ownership of removing the impediment by investigating the outage and arranging the support or resources needed to fix it.check_circle Correct
• CRemind the team that raising blockers is their responsibility and ask why the issue was not reported through the proper channel.
• DAbsorb the lost day into the schedule by requesting approved overtime so the milestone dates are protected.

Why A is wrong: Logging it as a risk looks diligent, but the outage is a present, quantified impediment already harming the team, so deferring action to a later review needlessly prolongs the loss.

Why B is correct: Clearing obstacles that block the team is a core servant-leadership responsibility, so the project manager acts to remove the impediment rather than leaving a known blocker in place.

Why C is wrong: Focusing on why nobody reported it shifts blame onto the team and discourages future candour, which is the opposite of the trust a servant leader is trying to build.

Why D is wrong: Overtime tempts because it defends the dates, but it treats the symptom while the root-cause outage continues to burn a day a week and adds strain to the team.

A hybrid programme is bringing together specialists from three departments who have never worked as one team. Each group has strong opinions about tools and process, and the project manager wants the team to feel genuine collective ownership of the outcome from day one. What should the project manager do to establish that shared purpose?

• ACirculate a vision statement the project manager has already written so everyone starts from a single clear objective.
• BLet each department keep its own local goals for now and align them once early deliverables reveal how the groups actually work.
• CRun a facilitated session where the team co-creates a shared vision and the values that will guide how they work together.check_circle Correct
• DAsk the sponsor to address the team and stress that cooperation across departments is expected of everyone.

Why A is wrong: A ready-made statement gives clarity quickly, but a vision handed down is not co-owned, so the specialists are unlikely to feel the collective commitment the project manager is seeking.

Why B is wrong: Deferring alignment avoids early friction, but leaving three separate goals in place entrenches silo thinking and makes a shared identity harder to build later.

Why C is correct: Co-creating the vision lets the team build a purpose it genuinely owns, which is how a servant leader forges a unified, high-performing team out of separate groups.

Why D is wrong: Sponsor endorsement adds authority, but an instruction to cooperate is compliance, not shared vision, and does not give the team a purpose it helped shape.

A project manager is initiating a predictive project that will process the health records of hospital patients in a jurisdiction that has recently introduced strict data-protection legislation. The team is eager to begin design work. What should the project manager do FIRST?

• ABegin the technical design and schedule a compliance check once a working prototype is available for the team to review.
• BAsk the sponsor to confirm that the compliance requirements documented on the organisation's previous health project still apply to this one.
• CIdentify the specific regulatory and organisational compliance requirements that apply, and build them into the project management plan.check_circle Correct
• DEscalate to the legal department and pause all project activity until they deliver a full written interpretation of the legislation.

Why A is wrong: This feels efficient because it keeps the team busy, but deferring compliance until a prototype exists risks building a design that has to be reworked to meet legal requirements identified too late.

Why B is wrong: Reusing prior requirements looks like sensible tailoring, but it assumes the old requirements are complete and current when new legislation may impose obligations the earlier project never faced.

Why C is correct: Identifying the applicable compliance requirements at the outset lets the project manager fold them into scope, quality, and risk planning before design decisions are made, which is the proactive process-following action.

Why D is wrong: Consulting legal is reasonable, but halting the entire project and waiting for an exhaustive interpretation escalates too far and stalls work the project manager could progress while requirements are being clarified.

Midway through planning a hybrid project, the team disagrees about a single requirement: some members treat a particular reporting rule as a binding legal obligation, while others believe it is only an internal organisational preference. What should the project manager do NEXT?

• AAdopt the stricter interpretation and treat the reporting rule as a binding legal obligation to remove any doubt for the team.
• BAsk the team to vote on how the reporting rule should be treated so that work can continue without any further delay.
• CRecord the reporting rule as optional in the backlog so the product owner can decide its priority during the next review.
• DDetermine whether the requirement is externally mandated by regulation or internally driven by organisational policy, and classify it accordingly.check_circle Correct

Why A is wrong: Defaulting to the strictest reading seems safe, but committing to legal-grade effort without confirming the source can gold-plate the work and waste capacity on an internal preference.

Why B is wrong: A vote resolves the dispute quickly, but the status of a compliance requirement is a matter of fact about its source, not a team preference that a majority can settle.

Why C is wrong: Deferring to backlog prioritisation fits an agile cadence, but labelling a possibly mandatory requirement as optional before classifying it risks dropping a legal obligation.

Why D is correct: Classifying a compliance item by its source clarifies whether it is mandatory or discretionary, which drives how much effort, evidence, and priority the requirement receives across the plan.

During execution of a predictive manufacturing project, testing shows that a completed component will not meet a mandatory safety standard set by the regulator. The sponsor is pressing hard for on-time delivery. What should the project manager do FIRST?

• AAnalyse the consequences of the noncompliance and address the defect before the component is allowed to proceed.check_circle Correct
• BDeliver the component on schedule and log the shortfall in the lessons learned register for a future project to address.
• CReassure the sponsor that the component can ship now and be brought into line with the standard in a later maintenance release.
• DAsk the quality team to relax the internal acceptance threshold so the component passes inspection and the schedule is protected.

Why A is correct: Understanding the impact of the breach and correcting it before the component moves on is the proactive, ethical response that keeps the project aligned with mandatory regulatory obligations.

Why B is wrong: Recording lessons learned is good practice, but shipping a component that breaches a mandatory safety standard exposes the organisation to the consequences of noncompliance rather than preventing them.

Why C is wrong: Promising a later fix protects the schedule and pleases the sponsor, but knowingly releasing a component that fails a regulatory safety standard is not defensible and can carry legal penalties.

Why D is wrong: Adjusting the threshold makes the problem appear to disappear, but changing the acceptance criteria to mask a regulatory breach is unethical and leaves the underlying noncompliance in place.