TOPIC: Clarification on question about Crashing

Hello,

I have a doubt on the following question (source: Tenstep Italy, question probably taken from Readysetpass but not sure)

T00-02 - A project manager is assigned to a new, high priority project.
There are only five available resources because other resources are
already committed to projects. The resource's time available to complete
the project is less than half the time needed, and the project manager
cannot convince management to change the end date. The project
manager should:
A. coordinate with team members the overtime necessary to complete the work
B. provide the team with opportunities to do a great job on the work that can be accomplished
C. cut the scope of work by removing the work that cannot be completed in the
time provided
D. use more experienced resources to complete the work faster

Answer says correct choice is C since 'Cut the scope of work by removing the work that cannot be completed in the time provided is a form of crash the schedule'

My idea was that choice A is the best since in the PMBOK I read 'Examples of crashing could include approving overtime' and I'm not sure that cutting the scope is feasible.

Andrea,

This question is not asking about crashing. It is testing your understanding of the competing project constraints. The question basically says: Your resources don't have enough time available to finish the scope by the due date. What do you do?

So in the question we are given 3 constraints: schedule, scope and resource availability.

The question clearly says that you cannot change the due date. So extending the schedule is not possible.

The question also says that the time the resources are assigned to our project is only 50% of what was needed. (And to me this means that the resources cannot work overtime because that is all we will get.)

So the only constraint that we can change is the scope. So scope reduction is the best answer for this.

As always: I recommend that you contact the creator of this question to find out what exactly the reasoning was.