September 8, 2026 · 7 min read
TL;DR: Ignore appears in ten options across this bank and is keyed zero times. The pattern is only interesting because of the reasons attached: ignore it under the rule of seven cites a real statistical rule, ignore the change request because the project is predictive cites a real delivery distinction, and ignore it and ask for a formal change request sounds like process discipline. Each option pairs a true premise with a dismissal the premise does not license.
A never-keyed option would be worthless to an exam if it were obviously never keyed. What makes this set worth ten minutes is how hard several of them work to sound defensible, and how precisely the explanations take that defence apart.
The control chart one, because the rule it cites is real and the numbers are almost right.
Studying a control chart for a bottling line, a project manager notices nine consecutive points falling on the same side of the mean. The options are run a design of experiments, redraw the chart around the new mean, identify the assignable cause, and ignore it under the rule of seven.
Keyed is identify the assignable cause.
The explanation walks through what the rule of seven actually says. Control limits describe what a process does when nothing unusual is happening, and points inside them are ordinary variation to be left alone. A run is different evidence from a single outlier: with a stable process each point is about equally likely to fall above or below the mean, so a long run on one side is very unlikely by chance. The rule of seven treats seven or more consecutive points on the same side as a signal even though not one may have breached a control limit.
Nine consecutive points is past that threshold. The distractor names the correct rule and then states the opposite of its conclusion, which is a harder trap than a made-up rule would be, because a candidate who half-remembers the rule of seven sees the phrase and feels confirmed.
Each pairs a true premise with a dismissal that premise does not support. Here they are with the gap named.
| Ignore option | Its stated reason | Why the reason does not license it |
|---|---|---|
| Ignore it under the rule of seven | The rule of seven | Nine points is past the rule's own threshold |
| Ignore the change request because the project is predictive | Predictive projects use change control | An approved change still needs funding discussed |
| Ignore it and ask the stakeholder to submit a formal change request | Changes go through change control | You still assess impact before routing it |
| Ignore the regressions and concentrate on hitting the schedule | The schedule matters | The client is relying on the broken functionality |
| Tell the team to ignore the requests | The interruptions cause delays | The plan defines how those needs get met |
| Ignore the stakeholder's request | A dashboard already gives real-time access | Handle it, and remind them of the dashboard |
| Ignore your observations and let her do her job | Staff rarely abandon work unfinished | The task is complex and hard to hand over |
| Tell the team to ignore the request and focus on customer value | Value delivery is the goal | The request came from the PMO and needs a real answer |
| Ignore the low-level issues, sort them out during testing | Details can be handled later | The issues are in the requirements, not the build |
| Tell the team member to ignore the agreement | The agreement is inconvenient | It was agreed by the team, and it binds |
The middle rows are the most instructive because the stated reason is not just true, it is the thing the exam usually rewards you for knowing. Predictive projects do run changes through change control. Value delivery is the goal. Details can often wait.
Common trap: the ignore option that pairs with process language. Two records in this bank offer ignore it and ask the stakeholder to submit a formal change request, and ignore the change request because the project is predictive. Both dress dismissal as procedure, and a candidate who has internalised route changes through change control can read either as the disciplined answer. The bank rejects both, and the reason is the same in each: procedure describes where a decision gets made, not whether you have to think about it first. In the work breakdown structure record, keyed is look for other impacts the change may have, because a change with no time or cost effect may still raise risk or lower quality, and the explanation says the project manager must understand all the impacts before taking any further action. The bank's wrong answers regularly borrow the vocabulary of good process to license skipping the analysis, and its explanations name the borrowing rather than only marking the option wrong.
Yes, and twice it is written as consideration for the team.
Tell the team to ignore the requests appears against a newly formed team being repeatedly interrupted by stakeholder requests for information. It is protective in intent, and it is a distractor. Keyed is review the communications management plan, because the plan defines how stakeholder information needs are to be met, and channelling inquiries through the proper routes is what reduces ad-hoc interruptions rather than instructing people to stonewall.
The dashboard record makes the same point from the other side, and it is a select-two question. A key stakeholder on an adaptive project would rather receive a weekly status email than use the live dashboard. Ignore the stakeholder's request is offered. The two keyed answers are take this on personally so the team can stay focused on deliverables, and check whether the report can be generated and sent automatically.
Both keyed answers protect the team's capacity, which is what the ignore option pretended to do. The difference is that they also give the stakeholder what they asked for, and the explanation adds the detail that matters: remind the stakeholder that the dashboard offers real-time access, while not letting the report consume team capacity as a backlog item.
Elimination speed, and a check on your own reading.
If ignore is keyed zero times in 2,141 questions, you can strike it on sight and spend the recovered seconds on the three that remain. That alone is worth knowing.
The more useful habit is the second-order one. When an option pairs a dismissal with a rule you recognise, the recognition is the bait. Read what the rule actually says and compare it with the numbers in the stem, because the bank's sharpest distractors in this set are the ones where the premise is true, the citation is accurate, and only the conclusion has been quietly reversed.
Is ignoring something ever the right answer on the PMP exam? Not in this bank. Ignore appears in ten answer options across the 2,141 questions and is keyed zero times. That includes cases where the reason attached to it is technically real, such as invoking the rule of seven on a control chart, which the bank uses precisely because the rule exists and the option misapplies it.
What is the rule of seven and why is ignore it under the rule of seven wrong? The rule of seven treats seven or more consecutive points on the same side of the mean as a signal that the process has shifted, even if no point breached a control limit. The bank's stem has nine consecutive points, which is past the threshold, so the rule says investigate. The distractor cites a real rule and inverts what it says.
Should a project manager tell a team to ignore stakeholder requests? No. When stakeholder requests for information repeatedly interrupt a newly formed team, the bank offers tell the team to ignore the requests and rejects it. Keyed is reviewing the communications management plan, because that plan defines how stakeholder information needs are meant to be met and channelling inquiries properly is what reduces the interruptions.
What replaces ignore as the keyed answer? Something proportionate rather than something dramatic. The bank keys reviewing a plan, identifying an assignable cause, looking for other impacts, discussing budget impact with the client, and inviting a stakeholder to explain their concern. None of these is heavy; they are just the smallest action that engages with the thing rather than dismissing it.
PMP Practice's 2,141 questions are re-certified against PMBOK 8 and the July 2026 Exam Content Outline, with every wrong answer explained, not just marked wrong. Start the free 20-question sample and see how many wrong options are built from a true premise and a reversed conclusion. No card, no signup required to try it.
Is ignoring something ever the right answer on the PMP exam?
Not in this bank. Ignore appears in ten answer options across the 2,141 questions and is keyed zero times. That includes cases where the reason attached to it is technically real, such as invoking the rule of seven on a control chart, which the bank uses precisely because the rule exists and the option misapplies it.
What is the rule of seven and why is ignore it under the rule of seven wrong?
The rule of seven treats seven or more consecutive points on the same side of the mean as a signal that the process has shifted, even if no point breached a control limit. The bank's stem has nine consecutive points, which is past the threshold, so the rule says investigate. The distractor cites a real rule and inverts what it says.
Should a project manager tell a team to ignore stakeholder requests?
No. When stakeholder requests for information repeatedly interrupt a newly formed team, the bank offers tell the team to ignore the requests and rejects it. Keyed is reviewing the communications management plan, because that plan defines how stakeholder information needs are meant to be met and channelling inquiries properly is what reduces the interruptions.
What replaces ignore as the keyed answer?
Something proportionate rather than something dramatic. The bank keys reviewing a plan, identifying an assignable cause, looking for other impacts, discussing budget impact with the client, and inviting a stakeholder to explain their concern. None of these is heavy; they are just the smallest action that engages with the thing rather than dismissing it.