FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE – LÍNGUA INGLESA – – CONCURSO PÚBLICO – CONTROLADORIA GERAL DA UNIÃO – PROVA COM GABARITO.

 Welcome back to another post!

➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE, aplicação em 20/03/2022.

➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR: FGV - CONHECIMENTOS - https://conhecimento.fgv.br/concursos

➧ GABARITO:

01-C, 02-E, 03-D, 04-A, 05-B

➧ TEXT:

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/professionalskepticism-and-

why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders

01 – (FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE)

On reading the title, the reader is led to assume that, besides defining, the author will:

(A) lay out clear tools for hiring professionals;

(B) inveigh against the major issues in the area;

(C) provide a rationale supporting the main topic;

(D) build up strategies to deny previous assumptions;

(E) resume alternatives which may have been proposed.

02 – (FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE)

Based on the information provided by the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).

(  ) An inquisitive mind is germane to those engaged in auditing.

(  ) Bringing out a verifiable estimate on skepticism can be done in no time.

(  ) On no account should professional skepticism be brushed aside when focusing on audit quality.

The statements are, respectively:

(A) F – T – F;

(B) T – F – F;

(C) F – F – T;

(D) F – T – T;

(E) T – F – T.

03 – (FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE)

In the first paragraph, when the author refers to a Jedi as

“trying to hone his understanding of the ‘force’”,

he means that this fictional character is attempting to:

(A) feign it;

(B) impart it;

(C) display it;

(D) sharpen it;

(E) treasure it.

04 – (FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE)

The extract that refers specifically to a clash that cannot be avoided is:

(A) “There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency”;

(B) “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”;

(C) “First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service”;

(D) “This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor”;

(E) “Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion”.

05 – (FGV-2022-CGU-AUDITOR FEDERAL DE FINANÇAS E CONTROLE)

The function of the extract

“whereas an auditor is required to remain independent” (fifth paragraph)

is to bring out a(n):

(A) gross misunderstanding;

(B) contrasting situation;

(C) impending matter;

(D) appalling context;

(E) startling episode.