Assurance is inherently limited because it involves evaluating information and processes based on evidence that may be incomplete or interpreted differently by various stakeholders. Absolute assurance is unattainable due to the human element in all stages—whether in preparing information, conducting the assurance, or interpreting the results.
Reasons for Inherent Limitations in Assurance:
Human Fallibility:
Both assurance providers and information producers can make mistakes or overlook details.
Example: An auditor may not detect all instances of fraud due to limitations in sampling techniques.
Subject Matter Complexity:
Some aspects of organizational performance, like future risks, are inherently uncertain.
Information Gaps:
Assurance relies on available data, which may be incomplete or not fully accurate.
Judgment-Based Processes:
Assurance often involves subjective judgment, such as estimating provisions or interpreting compliance with vague regulations.
Why Option B is Correct:
Fallibility across all parties involved—assurance providers, information producers, and consumers—means that there’s always a risk of errors or misinterpretation, preventing absolute certainty.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Certain industries and sectors: Assurance applies broadly across sectors, not just specific ones.
C. No written guarantee: While true, the lack of a guarantee is due to underlying fallibility and not the sole reason for lack of absolute assurance.
D. Solely based on opinions: While judgment plays a role, assurance is based on evidence and standards, not just opinions.
References and Resources:
ISO 19011:2018 – Guidelines for auditing management systems, emphasizing the limitations of audit evidence.
COSO Internal Control Framework – Discusses limitations in internal controls and assurance activities.
