Pular para o conteúdo principal

Questão de Inglês — Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension — FGV 2022

InglêsInterpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
Código
fg047134
Banca
FGV
Órgão
CGU
Ano
2022
Nível
Superior
Cargo
Auditor Federal de Finanças e Controle - Manhã

Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.


A brief definition


The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.


Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.


Why does it matter? Audit quality.


First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.


Applying skepticism internally


By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.


However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.


It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.


The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.


Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders 

The function of the extract “whereas an auditor is required to remain independent” (fifth paragraph) is to bring out a(n):
  1. Agross misunderstanding;
  2. Bcontrasting situation;
  3. Cimpending matter;
  4. Dappalling context;
  5. Estartling episode.
Revelar gabarito e comentário

GabaritoB — contrasting situation;

Comentário gerado por IA. É um apoio ao estudo, ancorado em fontes, mas pode conter imprecisões — confira sempre na fonte oficial (lei, súmula, edital e gabarito da banca). Encontrou um erro? Use “Reportar”.

Uso de "whereas" para contraste em inglês

Gabarito: letra B. A conjunção "whereas" é utilizada para estabelecer contraste entre duas ideias. No texto, ela contrapõe a condição de outros stakeholders (que são advogados de suas organizações e não independentes) à dos auditores (que devem ser independentes). Portanto, a função do trecho é trazer uma situação contrastante.

O parágrafo afirma: "Other audit stakeholders... are naturally advocates... therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent." O termo "whereas" sinaliza claramente a oposição.

Alternativa A — ❌ Incorreta

"Gross misunderstanding" (grande mal-entendido) não se aplica; o trecho não expressa um mal-entendido, mas uma comparação contrastante.

Alternativa B — ✅ Correta ⟵ GABARITO

"Contrasting situation" (situação contrastante). "Whereas" é uma conjunção contrastiva e o contexto mostra a diferença entre a falta de independência dos outros e a exigência de independência dos auditores.

Alternativa C — ❌ Incorreta

"Impending matter" (assunto iminente). Não há ideia de iminência; é uma relação de contraste.

Alternativa D — ❌ Incorreta

"Appalling context" (contexto chocante). O texto não tem tom de choque; é uma explicação objetiva.

Alternativa E — ❌ Incorreta

"Startling episode" (episódio surpreendente). Não há surpresa; o contraste é apresentado de forma lógica.

Gabarito: letra B.

Link permanente: /questoes/fg047134