AIGP IAPP Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

When assessing whether users should be given the right to opt out from an AI system, the primary considerations are feasibility, risk to users, and industry practice. Feasibility addresses whether the opt-out mechanism can be practically implemented. Risk to users assesses the potential harm or benefits users might face if they cannot opt out. Industry practice considers the norms and standards within the industry. However, the cost of alternative mechanisms, while important in the broader context of implementation, is not directly relevant to the ethical consideration of whether users should have the right to opt out. The focus should be on protecting user rights and ensuring ethical AI practices.

The GDPR privacy principles that this scenario violates are Purpose Limitation and Data Minimization. Purpose Limitation requires that personal data be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. Data Minimization mandates that personal data collected should be adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed. In this case, collecting extensive personal information (e.g., IP address, location, gender) and potentially using it beyond the necessary scope for the app ' s functionality could violate these principles by collecting more data than needed and possibly using it for purposes not originally intended.

The White House Executive Order of November 2023 designates the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the responsible body for creating guidelines to conduct red-teaming tests of AI systems. NIST is tasked with developing and providing standards and frameworks to ensure the security, reliability, and ethical deployment of AI systems, including conducting rigorous red-teaming exercises to identify vulnerabilities and assess risks in AI systems.

The correct answer isB. The EU AI Act assigns atiered penalty systembased on the severity of the violation. A breach ofobligations related to high-risk AI systemsfalls into the mid-tier category, triggering fines of €15 million or 3% of annual global turnover.

From the AIGP ILT Guide – EU AI Act Module:

“Providers of high-risk AI systems must comply with strict documentation, testing, monitoring, and registration obligations. Breaches of these result in significant fines of up to €15 million or 3% of turnover.”

AI Governance in Practice Report 2025 supports this:

“Non-compliance with obligations under Title III (high-risk systems) leads to financial penalties under Article 71(3) of the EU AI Act.”

Note: Thehighest penalty (€35 million or 7%)applies toprohibited AI uses, not to obligations for high-risk systems.

===========

Supervised learning is a subcategory of AI and machine learning where labeled datasets are used to train algorithms. This process involves feeding the algorithm a dataset where the input-output pairs are known, allowing the algorithm to learn and make predictions or decisions based on new, unseen data. Reference: AIGP BODY OF KNOWLEDGE, which describes supervised learning as a model trained on labeled data (e.g., text recognition, detecting spam in emails)​​.

The 1956 Dartmouth summer research project on AI is best known as a meeting focused on the founding of the AI field. This conference is historically significant because it marked the formal beginning of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. The term " artificial intelligence " was coined during this event, and it laid the foundation for future research and development in AI.

The correct answer is C, the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC plays a central role in U.S. AI governance by enforcing consumer protection and unfair or deceptive practices laws. In the context of AI systems such as companion chatbots, the FTC has authority to investigate risks related to user harm, transparency, safety, and misleading claims. AI governance frameworks emphasize regulatory oversight where AI systems may impact individuals psychologically, financially, or socially. Agencies like the FTC focus on ensuring that companies deploying AI systems do not cause harm through unsafe or deceptive practices and that they provide adequate disclosures about risks and system behavior. This aligns with broader AI governance principles of accountability, transparency, and risk management highlighted in the AI Governance in Practice Report 2024 , which stresses the importance of regulatory involvement in managing AI-related risks.

Deploying a challenger AI model alongside a champion model is a strategy used to compare the performance of different models in a real-world environment. This approach helps in providing a framework to consider alternatives to the champion model, automating real-time monitoring of the champion model, and performing testing on the champion model. However, retraining the champion model is not a reason to deploy a challenger model. Retraining is a separate process that involves updating the champion model with new data or techniques, which is not related to the use of a challenger model.

Testing results need to bedocumented thoroughlyto ensuretraceability, accountability, and compliance. This is central to enabling audits, investigations, or regulatory inquiries into the system’s development and performance.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“Documentation and recordkeeping are essential components… to demonstrate AI system compliance, trace system behavior, and support audits and conformity assessments.” (p. 34–35)

“Maintaining audit trails across development and deployment enables transparency and accountability.” (p. 12)

AandBare benefits, but not theprimary governance justification.

D– Limiting future testing is not a recommended goal.

Under the EU AI Act, organizations that develop and deploy high-risk AI systems are required to provide several key disclosures to ensure transparency and accountability. These include the human oversight measures employed, how individuals can contest decisions made by the AI system, and informing individuals that an AI system is being used. However, there is no specific requirement to disclose the exact locations where data is stored. The focus of the Act is on the transparency of the AI system ' s operation and its impact on individuals, rather than on the technical details of data storage locations.

The correct answer isB – The tech company. The party thatdevelops and trains the foundational modelis responsible for ensuring thelawful collection of training data.

From the AIGP ILT Guide – Foundational Models & Data Governance:

“Responsibility for the lawfulness of data collection typically lies with the party that trains the model—usually the provider or developer of the foundational model.”

AI Governance in Practice Report 2025 confirms:

“General Purpose AI providers are required to ensure that training data is lawfully acquired, including compliance with intellectual property and privacy requirements.”

The marketing agency is only auserordownstream integrator, not responsible for original data collection.

The correct answer is C because differential privacy is specifically designed to ensure that the inclusion or exclusion of any single data point does not significantly affect the output of a model. This provides strong mathematical guarantees that individual training data cannot be reverse-engineered or identified from model outputs. Differential privacy works by introducing controlled noise into the data or model outputs, thereby protecting individual-level information while preserving overall statistical patterns. In AI governance, it is widely recognized as a key privacy-enhancing technology for mitigating risks such as data leakage, membership inference attacks, and re-identification. Other options, such as homomorphic encryption, focus on secure computation, while data sharding and compartmentalization address data management but do not provide formal privacy guarantees at the model output level.

Once a company moves from being adeployerto also acting as aprovider or developer, it assumesnew obligationsunder regulations like the EU AI Act. One of the core requirements for providers is to produce and maintaintechnical documentation, including descriptions of the model, associated risks, and mitigation strategies.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“Providers of high-risk AI systems must draw up technical documentation demonstrating the system’s conformity with the requirements... including potential risks and safeguards applied.” (p. 34)

“This documentation must be available before placing the system on the market.” (p. 35)

While transparency is encouraged,publicly disclosing forecasts of secondary harmsisnot a required or standard practicefor internal performance evaluation. Risk assessments and reporting typically remaininternal or shared with regulators.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“Organizations must assess secondary risks… but disclosure is subject to context, regulatory requirements, and risk management discretion.” (p. 30)

To mitigate the risk of reputational harm from using an AI hiring tool, XYZ Corp should rigorously test the AI tool both before and after deployment. Pre-deployment testing ensures the tool works correctly and does not introduce bias or other issues. Post-deployment testing ensures the tool continues to operate as intended and adapts to any changes in data or usage patterns. This approach helps to identify and address potential issues proactively, thereby reducing the risk of reputational harm. Ensuring the vendor assumes responsibility for damages (B) does not address the root cause of potential issues, selecting the most economical tool (C) may compromise quality, and continuing manual screening (D) defeats the purpose of using the AI tool​​​​.

AI ' s resource-intensive computing demands pose significant environmental risks. High-performance computing required for training and deploying AI models often leads to substantial energy consumption, which can result in increased carbon emissions and other environmental impacts. This is particularly relevant given the growing concern over climate change and the environmental footprint of technology. Organizations need to consider these environmental risks when developing AI systems, potentially exploring more energy-efficient methods and renewable energy sources to mitigate the environmental impact.

The correct answer isD. While modernization through software may support efficiency, it isnot a foundational or essential componentof designing an integrated strategy.

From the AI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“Integrated strategies rely on senior management support, ethical reviews, and stakeholder engagement... The use of tools and platforms may come later as an operational enhancement.”

Also confirmed in AIGP Body of Knowledge:

“Key components of a governance framework include leadership buy-in, ethical analysis, and stakeholder input. Tools are supporting elements—not strategic drivers.”

===========