Q.In practice, a well-planned real audit typically:
(A) Uses only Routine Checking, and never Test Checking
(B) Uses only Test Checking, and never Routine Checking
(C) Uses both Routine Checking and Test Checking together, alongside full checking of certain high-risk categories of transactions
(D) Avoids both techniques and relies solely on management's own representations

The two techniques serve different purposes and are combined, not treated as mutually exclusive alternatives.

Section c makes explicit that Routine Checking and Test Checking are not mutually exclusive substitutes for one another — a real audit programme typically uses BOTH together: routine checking (often delegated to junior staff) confirms the basic arithmetical accuracy of the books as a whole, while test checking is layered on top of it to examine the substance of a representative sample of transactions in greater depth. On top of both, certain categories of transaction (Section d — large, unusual, related-party, statutory, opening/closing entries, or areas of known weak internal control) are always checked in FULL, regardless of either technique's general rule.

Option-by-option analysis:

• (A) Incorrect — relying on routine checking alone would leave the SUBSTANCE of transactions (as opposed to their mere arithmetic) entirely unexamined. …