Which assurance level is described as more limited in scope than reasonable assurance?

Which assurance level is described as more limited in scope than reasonable assurance?

• A. Limited assurance (also called a review).
• B. Reasonable assurance.
• C. Audit-level assurance.
• D. No assurance.

Answer: (A)

Assurance levels reflect how much testing and evidence support the subject matter. Limited assurance, often called a review, uses fewer procedures—primarily inquiry and some analytical procedures—so the level of confidence is lower than for a full, thorough audit. Because the procedures are lighter and provide less corroboration, the conclusion is a lower level of assurance (negative assurance) about the information being fairly presented. Reasonable assurance, by contrast, involves more extensive testing and evidence, yielding a higher level of confidence. Audit-level assurance would be even more rigorous, and no assurance means no independent evaluation at all. So the option described as more limited in scope than reasonable assurance is limited assurance (a review).

Assurance levels reflect how much testing and evidence support the subject matter. Limited assurance, often called a review, uses fewer procedures—primarily inquiry and some analytical procedures—so the level of confidence is lower than for a full, thorough audit. Because the procedures are lighter and provide less corroboration, the conclusion is a lower level of assurance (negative assurance) about the information being fairly presented.

Reasonable assurance, by contrast, involves more extensive testing and evidence, yielding a higher level of confidence. Audit-level assurance would be even more rigorous, and no assurance means no independent evaluation at all. So the option described as more limited in scope than reasonable assurance is limited assurance (a review).