mcAfee Secure Website
23

PMI PMP Bundle

Exam Code: PMP

Exam Name Project Management Professional (PMBOK 8)

Certification Provider: PMI

Corresponding Certification: PMP

PMP Training Materials $19.99
Pass4sure Q&A Sample #1 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #2 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #3 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #4 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #5 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #6 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #7 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #8 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #9 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #10

Reliable & Actual Study Materials for PMP Exam Success

The Latest PMP Exam Questions as Experienced in the Actual Test!

  • 24
    Questions & Answers

    PMP Questions & Answers

    677 Questions & Answers

    Includes questions types found on actual exam such as drag and drop, simulation, type in, and fill in the blank.

  • exam =30
    Study Guide

    PMP Study Guide

    255 PDF Pages

    Study Guide developed by industry experts who have written exams in the past. They are technology-specific IT certification researchers with at least a decade of experience at Fortune 500 companies.

exam =32

Project Management Professional (PMBOK 8) (PMP) Practice Tests

Guarantee

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Pass4sure has a remarkable PMI Candidate Success record. We're confident of our products and provide no hassle product exchange. That's how confident we are!

99.3% Pass Rate
Total Cost: $154.98
Bundle Price: $134.99

Purchase Individually

  • exam =34
    Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    677 Questions

    $124.99
    exam =35
  • exam =36
    Study Guide

    Study Guide

    255 PDF Pages

    $29.99

PMI PMP Practice Test 32

Question 310

In a project coordination meeting on an adaptive/agile initiative, an adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening. Which evidence would best substantiate that the intended outcome is actually achieved?

  1. Review faculty pilot outcomes and outstanding cross-department dependencies.
  2. Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche.
  3. Review dependency mapping and signed acceptance of the initial benefit slice.
  4. Review funnel telemetry and clinical workflow tests for selected changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Review funnel telemetry and clinical workflow tests for selected changes. The evidence tests whether the intended behavior or acceptance occurred instead of relying on unsupported assurances. In this case, engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome. The stated constraint is: An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening. The chosen assurance is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Review faculty pilot outcomes and outstanding cross-department dependencies. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A university digital course project can launch to one faculty now or wait until every department is ready. There, incremental value delivery reduces uncertainty without requiring every unit to launch together. For the current situation—An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome.

B:

Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. There, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. For the current situation—An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome.

C:

Review dependency mapping and signed acceptance of the initial benefit slice. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. There, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. For the current situation—An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome.

Question 311

In a project coordination meeting on an adaptive/agile initiative, a project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. What should the project manager do first to address the specific problem?

  1. Use observed drop-off points to prioritize screening-journey improvements.
  2. Prioritize changes that remove real approval bottlenecks and measure citizen cycle time.
  3. Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value.
  4. Reevaluate the business case and recommend pivoting or stopping low-value work.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value. The intervention directly targets the cause described in the scenario rather than creating an unrelated process change. In this case, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. The stated constraint is: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. The chosen action is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use observed drop-off points to prioritize screening-journey improvements. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening. There, engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

B:

Prioritize changes that remove real approval bottlenecks and measure citizen cycle time. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A government automation project counts forms digitized but has not reduced permit processing time. There, digitization volume is not equivalent to realized service value. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

D:

Reevaluate the business case and recommend pivoting or stopping low-value work. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. There, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

Question 312

While resolving an implementation issue on an adaptive/agile initiative, a project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. Which assignment establishes appropriate accountability for the affected decision?

  1. Have sponsor and product owner approve the minimal integrated value slice.
  2. Have the plant business owner own scrap reduction and project lead own corrective delivery.
  3. Have product owner manage ordering with sponsor approval of material priority changes.
  4. Have the investment sponsor decide continuation against updated benefit evidence.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Have sponsor and product owner approve the minimal integrated value slice. The selected owner has authority over the specific business decision instead of transferring responsibility to an unrelated function. In this case, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. The stated constraint is: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. The chosen accountability is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Have the plant business owner own scrap reduction and project lead own corrective delivery. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A predictive factory equipment project meets its date but scrap rates remain unchanged. There, project success includes promised operational results beyond the installation milestone. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

C:

Have product owner manage ordering with sponsor approval of material priority changes. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A payment product's backlog is ordered by internal department politics rather than outcomes. There, explicit value criteria reduce arbitrary sequencing and resource waste. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

D:

Have the investment sponsor decide continuation against updated benefit evidence. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. There, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

Question 313

In a project risk and outcome review on an adaptive/agile initiative, a project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. Which indicator would most directly show whether this specific situation is improving?

  1. Track time to first user-accepted outcome and remaining dependency risk.
  2. Track realized benefits per iteration relative to projected investment.
  3. Track incremental repeat-purchase lift against an agreed control cohort.
  4. Track dispatch efficiency alongside driver safety events.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Track time to first user-accepted outcome and remaining dependency risk. The indicator reflects the underlying outcome or remaining exposure rather than a nearby but different activity. In this case, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. The stated constraint is: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. The chosen measurement is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Track realized benefits per iteration relative to projected investment. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A payment product's backlog is ordered by internal department politics rather than outcomes. There, explicit value criteria reduce arbitrary sequencing and resource waste. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

C:

Track incremental repeat-purchase lift against an agreed control cohort. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A retailer wants to deploy loyalty personalization all at once even though customer behavior is uncertain. There, small experiments can prevent spending on features that do not improve outcomes. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

D:

Track dispatch efficiency alongside driver safety events. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. There, a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

Question 314

During a delivery checkpoint on an adaptive/agile initiative, a project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. Which evidence would best substantiate that the intended outcome is actually achieved?

  1. Compare backlog rationale with customer evidence and benefit data.
  2. Review experiment design and statistically sensible uplift evidence before expansion.
  3. Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche.
  4. Review dependency mapping and signed acceptance of the initial benefit slice.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Review dependency mapping and signed acceptance of the initial benefit slice. The evidence tests whether the intended behavior or acceptance occurred instead of relying on unsupported assurances. In this case, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. The stated constraint is: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. The chosen assurance is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Compare backlog rationale with customer evidence and benefit data. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A payment product's backlog is ordered by internal department politics rather than outcomes. There, explicit value criteria reduce arbitrary sequencing and resource waste. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

B:

Review experiment design and statistically sensible uplift evidence before expansion. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A retailer wants to deploy loyalty personalization all at once even though customer behavior is uncertain. There, small experiments can prevent spending on features that do not improve outcomes. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

C:

Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. There, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. For the current situation—A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early.

Question 315

During a delivery checkpoint on a predictive initiative, a logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. What should the project manager do first to address the specific problem?

  1. Rebalance the value hypothesis to include safety guardrails before rollout.
  2. Prioritize changes that remove real approval bottlenecks and measure citizen cycle time.
  3. Reassess benefits assumptions and prioritize changes affecting actual scrap drivers.
  4. Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Rebalance the value hypothesis to include safety guardrails before rollout. The intervention directly targets the cause described in the scenario rather than creating an unrelated process change. In this case, a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes. The stated constraint is: A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. The chosen action is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Prioritize changes that remove real approval bottlenecks and measure citizen cycle time. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A government automation project counts forms digitized but has not reduced permit processing time. There, digitization volume is not equivalent to realized service value. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

C:

Reassess benefits assumptions and prioritize changes affecting actual scrap drivers. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A predictive factory equipment project meets its date but scrap rates remain unchanged. There, project success includes promised operational results beyond the installation milestone. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

D:

Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. There, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

Question 316

During a project governance review on a predictive initiative, a logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. Which assignment establishes appropriate accountability for the affected decision?

  1. Have fleet safety and operations owners jointly approve acceptable pilot outcomes.
  2. Have faculty academic owner accept pilot value and sponsor approve scaling.
  3. Have the plant business owner own scrap reduction and project lead own corrective delivery.
  4. Have clinical operations own completed screening benefits and product owner rank iteration work.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Have fleet safety and operations owners jointly approve acceptable pilot outcomes. The selected owner has authority over the specific business decision instead of transferring responsibility to an unrelated function. In this case, a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes. The stated constraint is: A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. The chosen accountability is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Have faculty academic owner accept pilot value and sponsor approve scaling. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A university digital course project can launch to one faculty now or wait until every department is ready. There, incremental value delivery reduces uncertainty without requiring every unit to launch together. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

C:

Have the plant business owner own scrap reduction and project lead own corrective delivery. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A predictive factory equipment project meets its date but scrap rates remain unchanged. There, project success includes promised operational results beyond the installation milestone. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

D:

Have clinical operations own completed screening benefits and product owner rank iteration work. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening. There, engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

Question 317

In a discussion with the delivery team on a predictive initiative, a logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. Which indicator would most directly show whether this specific situation is improving?

  1. Track dispatch efficiency alongside driver safety events.
  2. Track end-to-end permit cycle-time reduction after each increment.
  3. Track defect scrap per production unit after commissioning.
  4. Track incremental repeat-purchase lift against an agreed control cohort.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Track dispatch efficiency alongside driver safety events. The indicator reflects the underlying outcome or remaining exposure rather than a nearby but different activity. In this case, a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes. The stated constraint is: A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. The chosen measurement is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Track end-to-end permit cycle-time reduction after each increment. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A government automation project counts forms digitized but has not reduced permit processing time. There, digitization volume is not equivalent to realized service value. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

C:

Track defect scrap per production unit after commissioning. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A predictive factory equipment project meets its date but scrap rates remain unchanged. There, project success includes promised operational results beyond the installation milestone. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

D:

Track incremental repeat-purchase lift against an agreed control cohort. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A retailer wants to deploy loyalty personalization all at once even though customer behavior is uncertain. There, small experiments can prevent spending on features that do not improve outcomes. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

Question 318

At the next sponsor and team checkpoint on a predictive initiative, a logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. Which evidence would best substantiate that the intended outcome is actually achieved?

  1. Review experiment design and statistically sensible uplift evidence before expansion.
  2. Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche.
  3. Compare pilot productivity with verified route-safety exceptions.
  4. Review faculty pilot outcomes and outstanding cross-department dependencies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Compare pilot productivity with verified route-safety exceptions. The evidence tests whether the intended behavior or acceptance occurred instead of relying on unsupported assurances. In this case, a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes. The stated constraint is: A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes. The chosen assurance is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Review experiment design and statistically sensible uplift evidence before expansion. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A retailer wants to deploy loyalty personalization all at once even though customer behavior is uncertain. There, small experiments can prevent spending on features that do not improve outcomes. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

B:

Review user-demand research and revised economic case before releasing the next tranche. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. There, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

D:

Review faculty pilot outcomes and outstanding cross-department dependencies. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A university digital course project can launch to one faculty now or wait until every department is ready. There, incremental value delivery reduces uncertainty without requiring every unit to launch together. For the current situation—A logistics AI pilot demonstrates reduced dispatch effort but increases unsafe driver route changes—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: a narrow efficiency benefit does not justify violating other essential outcomes.

Question 319

During a delivery checkpoint on an adaptive/agile initiative, a sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. What should the project manager do first to address the specific problem?

  1. Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value.
  2. Use observed drop-off points to prioritize screening-journey improvements.
  3. Reevaluate the business case and recommend pivoting or stopping low-value work.
  4. Reassess benefits assumptions and prioritize changes affecting actual scrap drivers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Reevaluate the business case and recommend pivoting or stopping low-value work. The intervention directly targets the cause described in the scenario rather than creating an unrelated process change. In this case, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. The stated constraint is: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. The chosen action is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Reorder the roadmap to deliver the dependency slice with the earliest usable value. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. There, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.

B:

Use observed drop-off points to prioritize screening-journey improvements. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: An adaptive public-health app collects many downloads but few patients complete screening. There, engagement proxies should not substitute for the intended health-service outcome. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.

D:

Reassess benefits assumptions and prioritize changes affecting actual scrap drivers. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A predictive factory equipment project meets its date but scrap rates remain unchanged. There, project success includes promised operational results beyond the installation milestone. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.

Question 320

During a project governance review on an adaptive/agile initiative, a sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. Which assignment establishes appropriate accountability for the affected decision?

  1. Have the investment sponsor decide continuation against updated benefit evidence.
  2. Have faculty academic owner accept pilot value and sponsor approve scaling.
  3. Have sponsor and product owner approve the minimal integrated value slice.
  4. Have the public-service owner define citizen value and sponsor approve redesign priorities.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Have the investment sponsor decide continuation against updated benefit evidence. The selected owner has authority over the specific business decision instead of transferring responsibility to an unrelated function. In this case, sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value. The stated constraint is: A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report. The chosen accountability is the most direct response under these conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Have faculty academic owner accept pilot value and sponsor approve scaling. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A university digital course project can launch to one faculty now or wait until every department is ready. There, incremental value delivery reduces uncertainty without requiring every unit to launch together. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.

C:

Have sponsor and product owner approve the minimal integrated value slice. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A project has limited funding and a high-value feature depends on three low-value preparatory enhancements. There, prioritization should consider dependencies while still delivering value early. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.

D:

Have the public-service owner define citizen value and sponsor approve redesign priorities. This response addresses another situation in the same task area: A government automation project counts forms digitized but has not reduced permit processing time. There, digitization volume is not equivalent to realized service value. For the current situation—A sponsor wants to continue a costly analytics project after evidence shows target users no longer need its main report—this option would leave the specific need unresolved: sunk spending is not a valid reason to ignore diminished future value.