Statement I is true - component VaR for individual assets in the portfolio add up to the total VaR for the portfolio. This property makes component VaR extremely useful for risk disaggregation and allocation.
Stateent II is incorrect, the incremental VaRs for the positions in a portfolio do not add up to the portfolio VaR, in fact their sum would be greater.
Statement III is correct. Marginal VaR for an asset or position in the portfolio is by definition the change in the VaR as a result of a $1 change in that position. Incremental VaR is the change in the VaR for a portfolio from a new position added to the portfolio - and if that position is $1, it would be identical to the marginal VaR.
Statement IV is correct, VaR is sub-additive due to the diversification effect. Adding up the VaRs for all the positions in a portfolio will add up to more than the VaR for the portfolio as a whole (unless all the positions are 100% correlated, which effectively would mean they are all identical securities which means the portfolio has only one asset).
Statement V is in incorrect. As explained for Statement I above, component VaR adds up to the VaR for the portfolio.

The actuarial model considers defaults to follow a Poisson distribution with a given mean per period, and these are binary in nature, ie a default happens or it does not happen. The model does not consider the loss of value from credit downgrades, and focuses only on defaults. The model also does not consider default correlations between obligors. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.
The other choices are not true statements that would apply to the actuarial approach.

Statement I is true. According to the statement CP08/24: Stress and scenario testing (December 2008) issued by the FSA in the UK, an underlying objective of reverse stress tests is to ensure that a firm can survive long enough after risks have crystallized for one of the following to occur:
- the market decides that its lack of confidence is unfounded and recommences transacting with the firm;
- the firm down-sizes and re-structures its business;
- the firm is taken over, or its business is transferred in an orderly manner; or
- public authorities take the firm over, or wind down its business in an orderly manner.
Statement II and III are true. The same statement clarifies the intention of the reverse stress testing requirement, which is to encourage firms to: explore more fully the vulnerabilities of theirbusiness model (including 'tail risks'); make decisions that better integrate business and capital planning; and improve their contingency planning.
Statement IV is incorrect. Since the question is asking for the statement which is NOT an objective for reverse stress tests, Choice 'b' is the correct answer. The same statement clarifies that the introduction of a reverse- stress test requirement should not be interpreted as indicating that the FSA is pursuing a 'zero-failure' policy.
In the FSA's view, such a policy is neither possible, nor desirable.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer. Refer to the detailed loss event type classification under Basel II (see Annex 9 of the accord). You should know the exact names of all loss event types, and examples of each.

The second order approximation of the VaR of an options position is given by [Option delta x Underlying's VaR - Option gamma/2 x (Underlying's VaR)^2]. Therefore, a higher gamma reduces VaR and a lower gamma increases VaR. Hence Choice 'b' is the correct answer.