1) Inherent risk in this scenario is certainly not zero as they states that he has never seen an accounting modification recommended which may mean that there have been something that occurred that was immaterial it didn't need to be adjusted. In the event the inherent risk was absolutely no there more than likely been the opportunity that anything could fail and to provide a actually zero risk there is absolutely no point then simply to taxation the company. 2) In chapter three they mention that control risk should not be assessed so low that the review team places complete reliability on handles and does not perform any other audit work. By stating this it demonstrates that it is completely wrong to suppose the control risk is zero. Zero should never be the control risk if it is it wouldn't become neseccary for the auditor to do any kind of work. 3) Fields is definitely incorrect never to give any thought to natural risk. Knowing the inherent hazards leads all of us to know regarding the feature of the business, their major types of transactions, and the effectiveness with the way that they account for their very own transactions. With out this expertise it would be tough for Fields to do a good audit and know what to look for. Fields prevents himself from knowing the proper way to audit the customer. 4) With the movement in personnel, it will have taken Shad longer to complete the examine than the year before. The control risk is extremely large with the accounting personnel's most resigning during the year and with the inexperience accountancy firm taking over. The comptroller resigned in outrage and the magazines were chaos. With all this going on it would be more difficult to execute the examine, which could lead to the audit choosing more time to account for the larger control risk.