Q.Which of the following is a genuine LIMITATION of Routine Checking?
(A) It cannot be delegated to junior audit staff
(B) It is purely mechanical and does not examine the substance of a transaction, so it cannot by itself detect deliberate manipulation
(C) It is only usable in a business with a very small volume of transactions
(D) It requires considerable auditor judgment to select a representative sample

Routine checking's core weakness is that it only confirms arithmetic, not the genuineness of the underlying transaction.

Option (A) is false (routine checking IS delegable, that is one of its advantages). Option (C) is false (it is usable regardless of size, though more burdensome for larger volumes). Option (D) describes test checking's requirement, not routine checking's.

Routine Checking verifies the ARITHMETICAL accuracy of the books — casting, carry-forwards, postings, and balancing — but says nothing about whether the underlying transaction being recorded was genuine, properly authorised, or free from deliberate manipulation. A fictitious but correctly-added and correctly-posted entry passes routine checking without issue, which is exactly why routine checking is never treated as a complete audit technique on its own.

Option-by-option analysis:

• (A) Incorrect — being delegable to junior staff is listed as an ADVANTAGE of routine checking, not a limitation.
• (B) Correct — this is precisely the stated limitation: routine checking is mechanical and cannot detect deliberate manipulation of figures that are, in themselves, correctly added, carried forward, posted, and balanced.
• (C) Incorrect — routine checking is not restricted to small businesses; it is simply more time-consuming for a larger volume.
• (D) Incorrect — requiring considerable judgment to select a representative sample is a feature of TEST checking, not routine checking (which involves no sampling/selection at all).