## 4 Discussion  
[PERSON] [66] mentioned that residual soil slopes with inclinations over 45\({}^{\circ}\) are not infrequent; however, the author did not differentiate between the different types of residual soils. Results shown in Figures 5 and 6, where it is observed that the most stable 10% of the models are concentrated in a range between 26\({}^{\circ}\) and 53\({}^{\circ}\), can corroborate the statement from [PERSON] [66] regarding residual granitic soils. The author also mentioned that cohesion plays an important role in stability, as shear strength depends on this parameter. The present study results are consistent with [PERSON]'s conclusions [66], only if the Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters are analyzed, as, in accordance with the sensitivity order, cohesion is third in influence on the SF. It bears mentioning that the works of [PERSON] [61], [PERSON] [62], and [PERSON] [64] presented different cohesions, which are directly related to the degree of weathering of the material. The degree of weathering was not included in this study; therefore, its analysis may or may not represent the influence of cohesion on the SF, according to [PERSON] [66]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [53] mentioned a \"metastable\" state when SF = 1. The authors stated that in this condition, slopes are stable but could fail in conditions of intense rain or \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Slope Height** & **Slope Angle** & **Cohesion** & **Friction Angle** & **Unit Weight** \\  & \(H\) & \(\beta\) & \(c\) & \(\phi\) & \(\gamma\) \\ \hline Sensitivity Index & 0.261 & 0.755 & 0.182 & 0.162 & 0.041 \\ Relative Sensitivity Index & 0.159 & 0.557 & 0.134 & 0.119 & 0.030 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Values of the sensitivity index and relative index of each variable. Figure 7: Boxplot of the sensitivity index for each variable. due to seismic activity. In addition, [PERSON] [66] explained that landslides in residual soils occur under intense rainfall, as the increase in pore pressure reduces the effective stress and, therefore, the shear strength of the soil. The author also mentioned that landslides can be triggered by earthquakes. This metastable state is represented in Figures 5 and 6 in orange (1 < SF-LB < 1.1; 1 < SF-UB < 1.2). In Figure 6, it is observed that the metastable models occur at higher slope inclination angles than in the case of the most stable 10% of the models, that is, even with \(\beta\) near 70\({}^{\circ}\). These models are associated mainly with small heights (\(H<\) 7.5 m) and cohesions around 5 kPa. This consideration is important since these slopes can be stable before excavation in dry and static conditions but can easily become unstable after heavy rains or seismic activity. [PERSON] et al. [15] mentioned that slope failure probability depends not only on geomechanical parameters but also on slope geometry. While the case studies of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [27], [PERSON] et al. [28], and [PERSON] et al. [29] did not consider the same materials, geometry, and pore pressure conditions as this study, similarities in the results were found. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [27] also found that geometry factors have the most influence on slope stability; however, they determined that slope height (\(H\)) has a greater influence than slope angle (\(\beta\)) on SF. As in this study, [PERSON] et al. [28] and [PERSON] et al. [29] found that factors associated with geometry have a greater sensitivity index than soil geomechanical parameters but in rock slopes. Likewise, this study presents a ranking that places geomechanical parameters below slope geometry, even though the cohesion sensitivity differs from the results of [PERSON] et al. [12].