Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Estimates may be updated as more information becomes available, but estimates are needed to assist with planning before the testing starts
b) Is not correct. In the expert-based approach, the experts need to be experts in testing, not in using the test object
c) Is correct. Test Managers, who will be leading testers doing the testing, are considered experts in their respective areas and suitable for estimating the necessary resources needed
d) Is not correct. While it is useful to know the testing costs from previous projects, a more sophisticated approach is needed than simply taking an average of past projects (the new project may not be like the previous projects, e.g., it may be far larger or far smaller than previous projects)

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. 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

a) Is correct. This information has been defined earlier in the test project
b) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report: information on what occurred during a test period
c) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report:

• Status of testing and product quality with respect to the exit criteria or definition of done
• Metrics of defects, test cases, test coverage, activity progress, and resource consumption

d) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report: Information and metrics to support recommendations and decisions about future actions, such as an assessment of defects remaining, the economic benefit of continued testing, outstanding risks, and the level of confidence in the tested software

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The test described is a non-functional test, it is a portability test, not a performance test
b) Is not correct. Processor test is not a defined test type
c) Is not correct. The test described is a non-functional test, specifically a portability test
d) Is correct. Testing supported devices is a non-functional test, specifically a portability test

Explanation / Rationale

The change in behavior may be either functional or non-functional you need to run change-related tests, some of which are confirmation tests and others are regression tests.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While enabling required tests to be identified in an early stage is a testing contribution to success, there is no indication in the question that the tester did so
b) Is not correct. Ensuring processes are carried out properly is part of quality assurance, not a testing contribution to success
c) Is correct. Reducing the risk of fundamental design defects is a testing contribution to success. Database structure is related to design, and performance problems can be a significant product risk
d) Is not correct. While reducing the risk of untestable functionality is a testing contribution to success, the tester here has not identified something untestable, but rather something that would result in performance tests failing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is error guessing
b) Is not correct. This is black-box test technique
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. This is exploratory testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. A path through source code is one potential route through the code from the entry point to the exit point that could exercise a range of decision outcomes. Two different paths may exercise all but one of the same decision outcomes, and by just changing a single decision outcome a new path is followed. Test cases that would achieve decision coverage are typically a tiny subset of the test cases that would achieve path coverage. In practice, most non-trivial programs (and all programs with unconstrained loops, such as ‘while’ loops) have a potentially infinite number of possible paths through them and so measuring the percentage covered is practically infeasible
b) Is not correct. Coverage of business flows can be a focus of use case testing, but use cases rarely cover a single component. It may be possible to cover the decisions within business flows, but only if they were specified in enough detail, however this option only suggests coverage of “business flows” as a whole. Even if business flows would cover some decisions, the measure “Decision Coverage” don’t measure the percentage of business flows, but the percentage of decision outcomes exercised by the business flows
c) Is not correct. Achieving full decision coverage does require all ‘if’ statements to be exercised with both true and false outcomes, however, there are typically several other decision points in the code (e.g., ‘case’ statements and the code controlling loops) that also need to be taken into consideration when measuring decision coverage
d) Is correct. Decision coverage is a measure of the proportion of decision outcomes exercised (normally presented as a percentage)

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 not correct. Informal review does not use a formal process
b) Is not correct. Use of checklists are optional
c) Is correct. Inspection is a formal process based on rules and checklists
d) Is not correct. Does not explicitly require a formal process and the use of checklists is optional

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Both developers and testers gain from experience
b) Is correct. Developers are often more interested in designing and building solutions than in contemplating what might be wrong with those solutions
c) Is not correct. Both developers and testers should be able to communicate well
d) Is not correct. Testers shall focus on the quality, not on the quantity

Explanation / Rationale

The following partitions can be identified:

1. <= 50, boundary value 50
2. 51 – 55 boundary values 51, 55
3. 56 – 60 boundary values 56, 60
4. >=61 boundary value 61

Boundary value according to glossary V.3.2: A minimum or maximum value of an ordered equivalence partition.

Thus:
a) Is not correct. Does not include all necessary boundary values, but it includes additional values: 0, 49, and 59, which are not boundary values in this equivalence partition
b) Is not correct. Does not include all necessary boundary values. 51 and 55 are missing
c) Is not correct. Does not include necessary boundary values but it includes additional values: 49, 62, and 54, which are not boundary values in this equivalence partition
d) Is correct. includes all necessary boundary values

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

Considering the attributes:

• There is a role of a scribe – specified for walkthroughs, technical reviews, and inspections; thus, the reviews being performed cannot be informal reviews
• The purpose is to detect potential defects – the purpose of detecting potential defects is specified for all types of review.
• The review meeting is led by the author – this is not allowed for inspections and is typically not the author for technical reviews, but is part of walkthroughs, and allowed for informal reviews
• Reviewers find potential issues by individual review - all types of reviews can include individual review (even informal reviews)
• A review report is produced - all types of reviews can produce a review report, although it would be less likely for an informal review

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While this information is useful for developers, it does not provide managers with a sense of the impact on product quality
b) Is not correct. This summary does not provide developers or managers with the necessary information and attacks the developers
c) Is not correct. This summary does not provide developers or managers with the necessary information and attacks the developers
d) Is correct. This summary gives a good sense of the failure and its impact

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While impact analysis is useful during maintenance testing it is not necessary for confirmation testing since confirmation testing is on the intended effects of a bug fix or other change
b) Is not correct. Confirmation and regression testing are two separate activities, and confirmation testing is not part of system design
c) Is correct. Impact analysis can be used to select regression tests for maintenance testing
d) Is not correct. Confirmation testing is not part of impact analysis, though confirmation testing will typically happen during maintenance testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The book provides general guidance, and is not a formal requirements document, a specification, or a set of use cases, user stories, or business processes
b) Is not correct. While you could consider the list as a set of test charters, it more closely resembles the list of test conditions
c) Is correct. The list of user interface best practices is the list of test conditions
d) Is not correct. The tests are not focused on failures that could occur, but rather on knowledge about what is important for the user, in terms of usability

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The statement is true. Achieving 100% decision coverage guarantees 100% statement coverage
b) Is not correct. The statement is false because achieving 100 % statement coverage does not in any case mean that the decision coverage is 100%
c) Is not correct. The statement is false because we can only do statements about 100% values
d) Is not correct. The statement is false

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. 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. Risk is determined by considering a combination of the likelihood of problem situations and the harm that may result from them but cannot be calculated by adding these together (the probability would be in the range 0 to 1 and the harm could be in dollars)
b) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers likelihood and chance (both forms of probability) with no consideration of the impact (or harm)
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers hazards and losses (a hazard is a bad event, like a risk, while loss is a form of impact) with no consideration of the likelihood (or probability)

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

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 correct. Test case execution (e.g., number of test cases run/not run, and test cases passed/failed)
b) Is not correct. This metric can be measured, but its value is low. The number of testers does not give any information about the quality of the test object or test progress
c) Is not correct. the coverage of requirements by source code is not measured during test execution. At most, the TEST(!) coverage of the code or requirements is measured
d) Is not correct. This metric is part of test preparation and not test execution

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer
b) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer
c) Is correct. This is a case where the requirement gives an enumeration of discrete values. Each enumeration value is an equivalence class by itself; therefore, each will be tested when using equivalence partitioning test technique
d) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer

Explanation / Rationale

Proposed test case covers all five possible single valid transitions in the given state diagram (S1->S2, S2->S1, S2->S3, S3->S2, and S3->S1).

Thus:
a) Is not correct. Because no invalid transitions are covered
b) Is correct. Because all valid transitions are covered
c) Is not correct. Because all valid transitions are covered
d) Is not correct. Because the test cases do not have pairs of transitions specified

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The lack of familiarity of the requirements author with the fitness domain is a root cause
b) Is not correct. The lack of training of the tester in state transition testing was one of the root causes of the defect (the developer presumably created the defect, as well)
c) Is correct. The incorrect configuration data represents faulty software in the fitness tracker (a defect), that may cause failures
d) Is not correct. The lack of experience in designing user interfaces for wearable devices is a typical example of a root cause of a defect

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 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. 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. 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 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

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

Given the annotated state model below:

The options achieve the following transition coverage:
a) Is not correct: OFF (2) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW = 7 transitions (out of 10)
b) Is not correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE = 7 transitions (out of 10)
c) Is not correct: HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE = 6 transitions (out of 10)
d) Is correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT = 8 transitions (out of 10)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This explains that each use case specifies some behavior that a subject can perform in collaboration with one or more actors. It also (later) explains that tests are designed to exercise the defined behaviors (basic, exceptional and errors)
b) Is not correct. Use cases normally specify requirements, and so do not ‘include’ the components that will implement them
c) Is not correct. Tests based on use cases do exercise interactions between the actor and the system, but they are focused on the functionality and do not consider the ease of use of user interfaces
d) Is not correct. Tests do cover the use case paths through the use case, but there is no concept of decision coverage of these paths, and certainly not of business process flows

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

Each transition must be traversed at least once. To do so, the first test can cover the happy path, a successful purchase, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for pumping, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for fuel type, and the last test the insertion of an invalid credit card. While the order is immaterial, fewer than four tests fail to cover one of the transitions inbound to waiting for customer or violates the rules about where a test starts or ends. More than four tests include tests that re-traverse already-covered transitions.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Defect clustering has to do with where defects are most likely to be found, not whether all of them can be found
b) Is correct. Testing can show the presence of defects but cannot prove their absence, which makes it impossible to know if you have caught all the bugs. Further, the impossibility of exhaustive testing makes it impossible for you to catch all the bugs
c) Is not correct. This principle says that you can find and remove many bugs but still release an unsuccessful software product, which is not what the product owner is asking you to ensure
d) Is not correct. Root cause analysis is not a testing principle

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The management decides about performing the review
b) Is not correct. The moderator, not the review leader should ensure the effective running of review meetings
c) Is not correct. The author fixes the work product under review
d) Is not correct. The manager monitors ongoing cost-effectiveness