Which statement best distinguishes internal review from external review?

Which statement best distinguishes internal review from external review?

• A. Internal review is revision by another person within the same agency; external review is by someone outside the agency
• B. Internal review is conducted by the court; external review is done by the same agency
• C. Internal review includes public hearings; external review includes parliamentary inquiry
• D. Internal review applies to budgets; external review applies to personnel decisions

Answer: (A)

The point being tested is who conducts a review of an agency’s decision—whether it’s done by someone inside the same agency or by someone outside it. The strongest statement is that internal review is revision by another person within the same agency, while external review is carried out by someone outside the agency. This captures the idea that internal review is an internal check within the department or body, whereas external review brings in an outside, more independent perspective—often by a court, an ombudsman, or an independent tribunal. Think about why the other descriptions don’t fit. Having the court do internal review or the same agency do external review flips the relationship, so it isn’t the defining distinction. Linking internal review to public hearings or external review to parliamentary inquiry mixes review processes with specific procedures rather than identifying who is reviewing. And tying internal and external review to budgets or personnel decisions ignores the fundamental difference in reviewer identity.

The point being tested is who conducts a review of an agency’s decision—whether it’s done by someone inside the same agency or by someone outside it. The strongest statement is that internal review is revision by another person within the same agency, while external review is carried out by someone outside the agency. This captures the idea that internal review is an internal check within the department or body, whereas external review brings in an outside, more independent perspective—often by a court, an ombudsman, or an independent tribunal.

Think about why the other descriptions don’t fit. Having the court do internal review or the same agency do external review flips the relationship, so it isn’t the defining distinction. Linking internal review to public hearings or external review to parliamentary inquiry mixes review processes with specific procedures rather than identifying who is reviewing. And tying internal and external review to budgets or personnel decisions ignores the fundamental difference in reviewer identity.