Final answer:
An auditor would likely rely on a primary method of evidentiary matter such as cash counts or bank confirmations to test the cash assertion. This ensures the accuracy through empirical evidence and rigorous testing.
Step-by-step explanation:
An auditor would likely select a primary method of evidentiary matter to test cash for the most relevant assertion. This evidentiary matter, or procedure if you will, is likely to be cash count or bank confirmation.
When selecting evidentiary matter, it is imperative that the evidence chosen is rooted in verifiable facts and tangible experiences, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the audit. In the realm of auditing, empirical evidence which includes direct observations, scientifically gathered data, or experimentation, is highly valued over anecdotal evidence. For instance, auditors often perform a cash count as it provides strong empirical evidence of the cash on hand. Similarly, bank confirmations are sought to corroborate the cash balances with the bank records, thus ensuring the integrity of the financial statements.
The auditor might also employ hypothesis testing based on sample evidence to make judgments about the financial information. This process, akin to the scientific method, holds that any claim about the physical state of affairs must be well supported by evidence. Therefore, in testing for cash, the auditor looks for evidence that can be observed and verified multiple times, maintaining objectivity and rigor in the audit process.