Final answer:
Inquiry alone can be considered quality audit evidence, but it is typically used alongside other procedures to strengthen the validity of the evidence obtained. Auditors use inquiry to gain information from company personnel, but they will also seek to corroborate this information to ensure sufficient appropriate evidence is collected.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject matter of this question is related to audit evidence within the field of accounting and auditing. The correct answer to fill in the blank is A: Inquiry alone would be considered quality audit evidence. Inquiry is a legitimate audit procedure that involves obtaining information and explanations from management, staff, or other knowledgeable sources within the entity being audited. However, auditors usually use inquiry in conjunction with other audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
It should be noted that inquiry alone may not always provide sufficient evidence because the information obtained needs to be corroborated. This can be achieved by combining it with inspection, observation, or other methods that provide direct audit evidence. Relying solely on inquiry would typically not meet the standards for sufficient appropriate audit evidence unless it is corroborated.
Inquiry does not involve making inquiries of prior auditors, which is a separate procedure related to understanding the reasons why a change of auditors may have taken place. Response D may be a potential audit procedure but is not directly associated with inquiry as an audit evidence source.