Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Incremental development involves establishing requirements, designing, building, and testing a system in pieces
b) Is not correct. This is a sequential model
c) Is not correct. This describes the waterfall model
d) Is not correct. Testing alone is not an increment/additional step in the development

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Regression testing does not check successful implementation of corrections and confirmation testing does not check for side effects
b) Is not correct. The statement about confirmation testing should be about regression testing
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Testing new functionality is not regression testing

Explanation / Rationale

There are three equivalence partitions, with the boundaries as shown:

• Invalid too low (0.4 and below)
• Valid (0.5 to 25.0)
• Invalid too high (25.1 and above)

Thus:
a) Is not correct. None of those four boundary values are included in this set of tests. These tests do cover the equivalence partitions
b) Is not correct. All these four boundary values are included in this set of tests, but two additional values are included, one for each boundary. These are the values associated with three-point boundary value analysis
c) Is correct. Each of those four two-point boundary values are included in this set of tests
d) Is not correct. These four values are all included in the valid partition

Explanation / Rationale

Test 01.001 must come first, followed by 01.002, to satisfy dependencies. Afterwards, 01.004 and 01.003 should be run in either order, followed by 01.005, to satisfy priority.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Performance testing is a test type, not a test level. Component testing focuses on defects in separately testable modules or objects, integration testing on defects in interfaces and interactions, system testing on defects in the whole test object, and acceptance testing is not typically focused on identifying defects.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

The level of risk will be determined by the likelihood of an adverse event happening and the impact (the harm) from that event.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The benefits are not when creating regressions tests, more in executing them
b) Is not correct. This is done by configuration management tools
c) Is not correct. This needs specialized tools
d) Is correct. Reduction in repetitive manual work (e.g., running regression tests, environment set up/tear down tasks, re-entering the same test data, and checking against coding standards), thus saving time

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the pieces of information:

1. Degree of impact (severity) of the defect – the developers are already aware of the problem and are waiting to fix it, so this is a less important piece of information.
2. Identification of the test object – as the developers are already aware of the problem and you are performing system testing, and you have already provided the version of the system you are testing you can assume they know the object that was being tested, so this is a less important piece of information.
3. Details of the test environment – the set-up of the test environment may have a noticeable effect on the test results, and detailed information should be provided, so this is an important piece of information.
4. Urgency/priority to fix – the developers are already aware of the problem and are waiting to fix it, so this is a less important piece of information.
5. Actual results – the actual results may well help the developers to determine what is going wrong with the system, so this is an important piece of information.
6. Reference to test case specification – this will show the developers the tests you ran, including the test inputs that caused the system to fail (and expected results), so this is an important piece of information.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is an objective listed
b) Is not correct. This is debugging
c) Is not correct. This is an activity within the test execution group of activities within the test process
d) Is not correct. This is part of debugging

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (which should be testing a defect has been fixed) is not correct
b) Is correct. The descriptions of both confirmation and regression testing match the intent of those in the syllabus
c) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (re-running all previously run tests to get the same results) is not correct, as the purpose of confirmation testing is to check that tests that previously failed now pass (the fix worked)
d) Is not correct. Although the description of confirmation testing is largely correct, the description of regression testing (re-running tests that previously failed) is not correct (this is a more detailed description of confirmation testing)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. For a loop construct, statement coverage only requires that all statements within the loop are executed, but decision coverage requires testing of both the conditions where the loop is executed and when it is bypassed
b) Is not correct. For a loop construct, statement coverage only requires that all statements within the loop are executed, but decision coverage requires testing of both the conditions where the loop is executed and when it is bypassed
c) Is not correct. Checklists are based on experience, defect and failure data, knowledge about what is important for the user, and an understanding of why and how software fails, none of which is likely to have led to the inclusion of such a test condition
d) Is not correct. While it is possible that someone might anticipate a developer making the mistaken assumption that there would always be at least one transaction in a month for every account, only decision testing guarantees testing of that condition

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The programmer appears to be performing unit testing on their own code
b) Is not correct. Code coverage is useful for unit testing, but it is not a tester mindset
c) Is not correct. The programmer’s mindset included contemplating what might be wrong with the code, but that is not a tester’s mindset
d) Is correct. This tester mindset, attention to detail, will help programmers find defects during unit testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests. The number of executable statements is often close to the number of lines of code minus the comments, but this option only talks about the number of lines of code exercised and not the proportion exercised
b) Is correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests (normally presented as a percentage)
c) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the percentage of executable statements exercised by tests, however many of the lines of source code are not executable (e.g., comments)
d) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests. This option only talks about the number of executable statements exercised and not the proportion (or percentage) exercised

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of quality assurance
b) Is correct. This is the Glossary definition of quality
c) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of security
d) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of cost of quality

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. One too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
b) Is not correct. One too much (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
c) Is not correct. Two too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
d) Is correct. The 4 equivalence partitions correspond to the description in the question, i.e., at least one test case must be created for each equivalence partition:

1. Equivalence partition: 0 ≤ employment time ≤ 2
2. Equivalence partition: 2 < employment time < 5
3. Equivalence partition: 5 ≤ employment time ≤ 10
4. Equivalence partition: 10 < employment time

Explanation / Rationale

For the input equivalence partitions given, the above used boundary value technique yields the following 8 coverage items:

10°C, 11°C, 15°C, 16°C, 19°C, 20°C, 22°C, 23°C.

Hence, the options have the following boundary value coverage:
a) Is not correct. 4 out of 8 (11, 20 ,22 and 23)
b) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 23)
c) Is correct. 5 out of 8 (10, 16, 19, 22 and 23)
d) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 22)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Based on definition of equivalence partition
b) Is correct. Based on definition from Glossary
c) Is not correct. Based on Glossary definition of testware
d) Is not correct. Based on definition of test oracle

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Selection of tools is a test manager task
b) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
c) Is not correct. The tester does not decide on the release of the test object
d) Is not correct. The tester specifies the test cases, the test manager does the prioritization

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Requirement management tools are not particularly suitable for developers
b) Is not correct. Configuration management tools are not particularly suitable for developers
c) Is correct. Static analysis tools are especially suitable for developers
d) Is not correct. Performance testing tools are not better suited for developers than for testers

Explanation / Rationale

The correct pairings of test activities and test tools are:

1. Performance measurement and dynamic analysis – (b) Dynamic analysis tools
2. Test execution and logging – (a) Code coverage tools
3. Management of testing and testware – (d) Defect management tools
4. Test design – (c) Test data preparation tools

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Static testing (reviews) contributes, but could not ensure, that requirements are detailed enough
b) Is correct. Testing contributes to the achievement of quality in a variety of ways, e.g., such as reducing the risk of inadequate software quality
c) Is not correct. This is quality assurance but not testing
d) Is not correct. The quality cannot be measured by counting the number of executed test cases without knowing the outcome

Explanation / Rationale

The following valid equivalence partitions can be identified:

1. Up to 1000 - Couch Potato!
2. Above 1000, up to 2000 - Lazy Bones!
3. Above 2000, up to 4000 - Getting There!
4. Above 4000, up to 6000 - Not Bad!
5. Above 6000 - Way to Go!

The sets of test inputs therefore cover the following partitions:
a) Is not correct. 0 (1), 1000 (1), 2000 (2), 3000 (3), 4000 (3) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
b) Is not correct. 1000 (1), 2001 (3), 4000 (3), 4001 (4), 6000 (4) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
c) Is not correct. 123 (1), 2345 (3), 3456 (3), 4567 (4), 5678 (4) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
d) Is correct. 666 (1), 999 (1), 2222 (3), 5555 (4), 6666 (5) – 4 partitions (out of 5)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is often carried out when timescales are short, so making in-depth investigations of the background of the test object is unlikely
b) Is correct. Glossary definition
c) Is not correct. Based on the Glossary definition of session-based testing, but with test execution replaced by test analysis
d) Is not correct. Glossary definition of experience-based testing

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the potential inconsistencies:

• 6-10 – If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is NOT inconsistent for borrowers to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 6-15 - If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is inconsistent for all users to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 7-12 – If borrowers can borrow a maximum of 3 books at one time it is NOT inconsistent for them to also reserve books (if they are on-loan).
• 9-11 – If a borrower can be fined for failing to return a book within 3 weeks it is inconsistent for them to also be allowed to borrow a book at no cost for a maximum of 4 weeks – as the length of valid loans are different.

Of the potential inconsistencies, 6-15 and 9-11 are valid inconsistencies.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. A crash is clearly noticeable by the user
b) Is not correct. This is a defect, not a failure since there is something wrong in the code. It may not result in a visible or noticeable failure, for example if the changes in the source code file are only in comments
c) Is not correct. The use of wrong input variables may not result in a visible or noticeable failure, for example if nobody uses this particular algorithm; or if the wrong input variable has a similar value to the correct input variable; or if the FALSE result of the algorithm is not used
d) Is not correct. This type of fault will not necessarily lead to a failure; for example, if no one uses this special algorithm

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The two methods are used sequentially, not simultaneously
b) Is correct. The primary sources of information come from the experienced testers, who are the experts. The consultant’s industry averages augment the original estimate from published metrics
c) Is not correct. The expert-based approach is the primary approach, augmented by a metrics-based approach
d) Is not correct. We do not know if this project is following Agile methods, and burndown charts do not come from external consultants

Explanation / Rationale

The following valid input equivalence partitions can be identified:

• Hours

1. Below 3 hours
2. 3 to 6 hours
3. Above 6 hours

• Intensity

4. Very low
5. Low
6. Medium
7. High

The given test cases cover the following valid input equivalence partitions:

Thus, the missing valid input equivalence partitions are: (2), (5) and (7). These can be covered by two test cases, as (2) can be combined with either (5) or (7).
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

The possible mappings of points 1 to 4 can be justified as follows:

1. Approach 3 is analytical: Risk-based testing is an example of an analytical approach, where tests are designed and prioritized based on the level of risk
2. Approach 2 is standard-compliant: The control algorithms is checked against industry-specific standard of the energy saving regulation.
3. Approach 4 is consultative: This type of test strategy is driven primarily by the advice, guidance, or instructions of stakeholders, business domain experts, or technology experts, who may be outside the test team or outside the organization itself
4. Approach 1 is reactive: Exploratory testing is a common technique employed in reactive strategies, whereby the explorative testing is assigned to the experience-based testing category

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. ‘Collection of metrics’ belongs to the main activity “Fixing and Reporting”
b) Is not correct. ‘Answer any question.’ belongs to the main activity “Initiate Review”
c) Is correct. The checking of entry criteria takes place in the planning of a formal review
d) Is not correct. The evaluation of the review findings against the exit criteria belongs to the main activity “Issue communication and analysis”

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. If there was no agreement on targets, it is impossible to reach the targets. Since this situation can´t occur, this is not a scenario happening in reality
b) Is not correct. The test case is objectively wrong, since under these conditions no bonus is paid because the agreed target was not reached
c) Is not correct. There was no agreement on targets, it is impossible to reach the targets. Since this situation can´t occur, this is not a scenario happening in reality
d) Is correct. The test case describes the situation that the too short period of employment and the non-fulfilment of the agreed target leads to non-payment of the bonus. This situation can occur in practice but is missing in the decision table

Explanation / Rationale

The complete decision table is shown below:

To achieve full coverage, test cases covering rules 2 and 3 are needed. DT4 satisfies the constraints of rule 2, while DT2 satisfies the constraints of rule 3.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testing does not identify the source of defects, debugging identifies the source of defects
b) Is correct. Dynamic testing can show failures that are caused by defects in the software. Debugging eliminates the defects, which are the source of failures
c) Is not correct. Testing does not remove faults, but debugging removes faults, which is synonyms for defects, that may cause the failures
d) Is not correct. Dynamic testing does not directly prevent the causes of failures (defects) but detects the presence of defects

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While the given statement is true, the explanation is not. The relationship between statement and decision coverage is misrepresented
b) Is correct. Since any test case will cause the outcome of the “if” statement to be either TRUE or FALSE, by definition we achieved 50% decision coverage
c) Is not correct. A single test case can give more than 25% decision coverage, this means according to the statement above always 50 % decision coverage
d) Is not correct. The statement is specific and always true, because each test case achieves 50 % decision coverage

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Reviews reduce, not increase, the total cost of quality
b) Is not correct. Increasing velocity is a sign of increasing development productivity overall, not just testing, so B only partially applies
c) Is correct. Velocity is a way of measuring productivity in Agile development
d) Is not correct. The benefit mentioned here has to do with increasing overall development team productivity

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The root cause is the distraction that the programmer experienced while programming
b) Is not correct. The accepting of invalid inputs is the failure
c) Is not correct. The error is the mistaken thinking that resulted in putting the defect in the code
d) Is correct. The problem in the code is a defect

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. If inadequate developer testing were the problem, the confirmation test would not pass in step 3
b) Is not correct. The same tester who successfully performed the confirmation test in step 3 is repeating it in step 5
c) Is correct. Configuration management maintains the integrity of the software. If a test that passes in step 3 fails in step 5, then something is different between those two steps. One possible difference is the test object, the option listed here. Another possible difference is the between the development environment and the test environment, but that is not an option listed here
d) Is not correct. If the developers were not fixing the defect, the confirmation test would not pass in step 3

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. ‘Beware of the pesticide paradox’ is concerned with re-running the same tests and their fault-finding effectiveness decreasing
b) Is not correct. This testing principle is concerned with performing testing differently based on the context (e.g., games vs safety-critical)
c) Is not correct. This testing principle is concerned with the difference between a tested and fixed system and a validated system. No ‘errors’ does not mean the system is fit for use
d) Is correct. If clusters of defects are identified (areas of the system containing more defects than average), then testing effort should be focused on these areas

Explanation / Rationale

There are three equivalence partitions:

• No sale completed (0.0 gallons)
• A valid sale occurs (0.1 to 50.0 gallons)
• An invalid amount is selected (50.1 or more gallons)

Thus:
a) Is correct. This set of input values has exactly one test per equivalence partition
b) Is not correct. This set of input values has does not cover the invalid amount partition
c) Is not correct. This set of input values has two tests for the valid sale equivalence partition, which is not the minimum
d) Is not correct. This set of input values covers the three-point boundary values for the two boundaries, not the minimum number required to cover the equivalence partitions

Explanation / Rationale

There is at least one test for each column in the decision table. However, column one requires two tests, one where the account is invalid and another where the account is valid, but the password is invalid, so the minimum number of tests is four.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. System testing does not test interfaces between components and interactions between different parts of the system; this is a target of integration tests
b) Is correct. Examples of work products that can be used as a test basis for component testing include detailed design, code, data model, component specifications. Examples of work products for system testing include system and software requirement specifications (functional and non-functional) use cases
c) Is not correct. Component testing does not ONLY focus on functional characteristics
d) Is not correct. Component tests are also executed by developers, whereas system testing typically is the responsibility of (independent) testers