Realistic Feasibility

Correct Answer: Investigate quieter models of wind turbines or explore suitable mitigation measures to reduce noise pollution

The first answer is the most suitable as it promotes an environmentally aware approach and seeks to balance development with conservation. This involves investigating quieter models of wind turbines or exploring suitable mitigation measures to reduce noise pollution, thereby averting the disruption of the local ecosystem. The second option, moving the project to another area without consulting stakeholders, undermines the principle of stakeholders' engagement and might lead to resistance from the new location's stakeholders. The third suggestion, installing the wind turbine and dealing with potential lawsuits later, is reactive and might cause unnecessary legal costs and reputation damage. Finally, ignoring the potential risk and continuing as planned is a reckless approach and not advisable in any project management context, as it could possibly lead to project failure.

Correct Answer: Include earthquake resistant design in construction plan and adjust budget accordingly

The best answer is 'Include earthquake resistant design in construction plan and adjust budget accordingly'. The other answers are flawed due to the following reasons. 'Proceed with the initial plan ignoring the potential risk' - This is not a good option, ignoring a potential risk, especially one as serious as an earthquake, can lead to significant damage, loss, and possibly even casualties. 'Move the hospital construction project to a different location' - While this might seem like a good idea, it may not always be feasible due to constraints like budget, availability of land in a safe location, etc. Furthermore, every location will have its own set of challenges. 'Avoid constructing in earthquake-prone areas, cancel the project' - This is also not a feasible option, given that the need for the hospital may be urgent and important. There may be ways to mitigate the risk, such as using earthquake resistant designs, which makes the first option the best choice.

Correct Answer: Reroute the highway to avoid the protected area, or explore mitigation strategies if rerouting is not possible.

As Certified Associate in Project Management, the most appropriate action would be to reroute the highway to avoid the protected area, or explore mitigation strategies if rerouting is not possible. This respects the environmental concern and aims to protect the wildlife. Proceeding with the project and paying a fine doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is avoiding harm to the wildlife. Convincing the community about the importance of the highway without addressing the environmental concern is not a responsible or effective project management strategy. Lastly, ignoring the feasibility study and continuing with the initial plan disregards the potential problem and diminishes the value of conducting a feasibility study. Therefore, the only responsible and ethical approach is to reroute or explore mitigation strategies.