Which statement about audit evidence quality is true?

Which statement about audit evidence quality is true?

• A. Originals are better than photocopies
• B. Third party documentation is less reliable than internal information
• C. Auditors' own work is not considered evidence
• D. Oral evidence is the most reliable

Answer: (A)

Original documents are more reliable than photocopies because they come directly from the source and provide an unaltered, verifiable record of the transaction. Photocopies can be reproduced, tampered with, or misfiled, so they carry a higher risk of not truly reflecting what happened. When originals aren’t available, certified copies or other corroborating external evidence should be sought to maintain reliability, and the auditor would note any limitations in obtaining original documentation. The other statements aren’t correct because external documentation from third parties is generally more reliable than internal documents, oral evidence is usually less reliable than written documentation, and the auditor’s own work does count as audit evidence when properly documented and supported by procedures.

Original documents are more reliable than photocopies because they come directly from the source and provide an unaltered, verifiable record of the transaction. Photocopies can be reproduced, tampered with, or misfiled, so they carry a higher risk of not truly reflecting what happened. When originals aren’t available, certified copies or other corroborating external evidence should be sought to maintain reliability, and the auditor would note any limitations in obtaining original documentation.

The other statements aren’t correct because external documentation from third parties is generally more reliable than internal documents, oral evidence is usually less reliable than written documentation, and the auditor’s own work does count as audit evidence when properly documented and supported by procedures.