Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The rule-oriented format includes formats like bullet point verification lists or tabulated forms of input-output mappings, explicitly showing the rules to be followed. Given/When/Then is a scenario-oriented format because it describes a scenario to be verified
b) Is correct. This is a Given/When/Then format, which is scenario-oriented
c) Is not correct. There no "product-oriented" format of acceptance criteria
d) Is not correct. There is no "process-oriented" format of acceptance criteria

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This test covers two acceptance criteria: one about editing the document and one about saving changes
b) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria cover the editor activities, not the content owner activities
c) Is not correct. Scheduling the edited content for publication may be a nice feature, but it is not covered by the acceptance criteria
d) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria state about reassigning from an editor to the content owner, not to another editor

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. One of the purposes of retrospectives is to identify potential process improvements, which, if put into practice, should result in the quality of future outputs of the development process (test objects) being higher. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective
b) Is not correct. A benefit of retrospectives for testing includes increased test efficiency through process improvements. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective
c) Is correct. Participants at retrospectives typically include testers, developers, architects, product owners, and business analysts, but end users are rarely invited or attend these meetings – and they are also unlikely to receive any reports from these meetings. So, it is very unlikely that they will learn and understand more about the development and test processes through retrospectives
d) Is not correct. A benefit of retrospectives for testing includes improved quality of testware (including automated test scripts) through joint reviews with developers. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective

Explanation / Rationale

TC1 achieves the highest coverage (4/7 – Req1, Req3, Req4 and Req7), so should be executed first.
Req2, Req5 and Req6 are still not covered.
The next test case that achieves the highest additional coverage of the remaining requirements is TC3, covering 2 out of these 3 requirements (Req5 and Req6). So, TC3 should be executed as the second one.
Now the only requirement still not covered is Req2, which is covered by TC4. Therefore, TC4 should be executed as the third test case.
So, the last test case executed will be TC2.

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

Explanation / Rationale

Exploratory testing is useful when there are few or inadequate specifications or there is significant time pressure on the testing. Exploratory testing is also useful to complement other more formal test techniques. Exploratory testing will be more effective if the tester is experienced, has domain knowledge and has a high degree of essential skills, like analytical skills, curiosity and creativeness.

Thus:
a) Is correct. Exploratory testing is useful when there are few or inadequate specifications or there is significant time pressure on the testing
b) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is not a black-box test technique
c) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is useful when the specifications are poorly written
d) Is not correct. Programming skills have nothing to do with exploratory testing in principle
e) Is correct. Exploratory testing will be more effective if the tester is experienced, has domain knowledge and has a high degree of essential skills, like analytical skills, curiosity and creativeness

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The approval of the budget is an example of an entry criterion. It would make no sense to approve the budget for some activity that has already been done
b) Is correct. Running out of budget can be viewed as a valid exit criterion
c) Is not correct. Availability of resources is an example of an entry criterion for testing
d) Correct. Coverage is a measure of thoroughness, so it is a typical exit criterion
e) Is not correct. This is an example of an entry criterion, checked before the project starts

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testing quadrants have nothing to do with describing the relationships between test levels
b) Is not correct. Testing quadrants cannot help in assessing any type of coverage
c) Is correct. Testing quadrants allow managers and other stakeholders to understand the relationships between test types, the activities they support (team support or product critique), and the viewpoint they are focused on (business- or technology-facing)
d) Is not correct. Testing quadrants is not a psychological model

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed testware, and the test activity that produces it:

i. The test completion report is an output of the test completion activity
ii. Data held in a database used for test inputs and expected results is the test data - output of test implementation activity
iii. The list of elements needed to build the test environment is the test environment requirements - output of test design activity.
iv. Documented sequences of test cases in execution order are the test procedures - output of test implementation activity
v. Test cases - output of test design activity

Test implementation produces the following outputs: test procedures (iv), automated test scripts, test suites, test data (ii), test execution schedule, and test environment elements such as stubs, drivers, simulators, and service virtualizations.

Thus:
a) Is correct. Items ii and iv in the list are produced as a result of test implementation
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. For a complex configuration item (e.g., a test environment), CM records the items it consists of, their relationships, and versions
b) Is not correct. CM tools do not execute test cases and do not calculate coverage
c) Is not correct. A CM tool is not a license management tool
d) Is not correct. CM tools do not generate test data

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Performing the impact analysis will not give information about completeness of tests. Analyzing the impact analysis of changes will help to select the right test cases for execution
b) Is not correct. Traceability does not give information about the estimated level of residual risk if the test cases are not traced back to risks
c) Is correct. Performing the impact analysis of the changes helps in selecting the test cases for the regression test
d) Is not correct. Analyzing the traceability between the test basis, test objects and test cases does not help in selecting test data to achieve the assumed coverage of the test object. Selecting test data is more related to test analysis and test implementation, not traceability

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is a common characteristic of white-box test techniques. Test conditions, test cases, and test data are derived from a test basis that may include code, software architecture, detailed design, or any other source of information regarding the structure of the software.
b) Is not correct. This is a common characteristic of white-box test techniques. Coverage is measured based on the items tested within a selected structure and the technique applied to the test basis
c) Is correct. This is a common characteristic of experience-based test techniques. This knowledge and experience include expected use of the software, its environment, likely defects, and the distribution of those defects is used to define tests
d) Is not correct. This is a common characteristic of black-box test techniques. Test cases may be used to detect gaps within requirements and the implementation of the requirements, as well as deviations from the requirements

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The whole team approach promotes robust communication and collaboration between the team members
b) Is not correct. While the whole team approach prioritizes collective accountability for quality, each individual team member is still equally accountable for quality
c) Is not correct. The whole team approach is about how the team works together, with the aim of higher quality deliverables, but it does not necessarily result in faster deployment to end users
d) Is not correct. When using the whole team approach, testers work with business representatives to create acceptance tests. There is no suggestion that the approach will reduce collaboration with external business users

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Validating that documented requirements are met is incorrect as validation is concerned with meeting user requirements and expectations, while verification is concerned with meeting specified requirements, so this would be correct if we replaced ‘validating’ with ‘verifying’
b) Is correct. Causing failures and identifying defects is probably the most common objective of dynamic testing
c) Is not correct. Initiating errors and identifying root causes is incorrect because testers do not initiate errors, they try to cause failures. Errors are typically made by developers (and cannot really be initiated) and result in defects, which testers attempt to identify either directly through static testing or indirectly through failures with dynamic testing. Identifying root causes is useful but is part of debugging, which is a separate activity to testing
d) Is not correct. Verifying the test object meets user expectations is incorrect as verification is concerned with checking specified (documented) requirements are met, while validation is concerned with meeting user requirements and expectations, so this would be correct if we replaced ‘verifying’ with ‘validating’

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. It is important that testers are involved from the beginning of the software development lifecycle (SDLC). It will increase understanding of design decisions and will detect defects early.
b) Is not correct. Both developers and testers will have more understanding of each other's work products and how to test the code
c) Is not correct. End users will not help the testers in increasing the quality of defect reports; also, users usually do not participate in low-level testing levels like integration testing
d) Is not correct. Being certified does not automatically mean that the tester will be better in test design

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. When a system is retired, this can require testing of data migration, which is a form of maintenance testing
b) Is not correct. Regression testing verifies whether a fix accidentally affected the behavior of other parts of the code, but now we are talking about data migration to a new system
c) Is not correct. Component testing focuses on individual hardware or software components, not on data migration
d) Is not correct. Integration testing focuses on interactions between components and/or systems, not on data migration

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The test automation approach is defined by testers with the help of developers and business representatives
b) Is not correct. The test strategy is decided in collaboration with the developers
c) Is not correct. Testers, developers, and business representatives are part of the whole team approach
d) Is correct. Testers will work closely with business representatives to ensure that the desired quality levels are achieved. This includes supporting and collaborating with them to help them create suitable acceptance tests

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
b) Is correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
c) Is not correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
d) Is not correct. This is the list of properties that each user story should have, not the description of the collaboration-based approach

Explanation / Rationale

There are five columns in the decision table. Each test case covers one of them.

TC1 and TC2 both cover Rule 4
TC3 and TC4 both cover Rule 2
TC5 covers Rule 5

So, these five test cases cover three out of five columns, achieving a coverage of (3/5)*100% = 60%. Therefore, option b) is the CORRECT option.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The miscalculation of bonuses is a failure by the system, not a defect
b) Is not correct. The system not suitably supporting disabled users is a failure which eventually results in a fine, but the fine itself is not a failure (it appears to be the correct functioning of the regulatory system)
c) Is correct. The error is made by the programmer and this mistake is caused by them working under severe time pressure, which is the root cause of the subsequent defect
d) Is not correct. The poor design of the user interface, which does not suitably address disabled users, is a design defect caused by the designer error. Thus the design of the user interface includes a design defect not a designer error

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This sequence of five events covers 4 different valid transitions (both “NotAvailable” events correspond to the same transition between S1 and S3). This test case covers 4 out of 7 valid transitions
b) Is correct. This sequence of five events covers 5 different transitions (the first “Available” event corresponds to a transition between S1 and S2, and the second “Available” event corresponds to a transition between S3 and S2, so two different transitions are covered). This test case covers 5 out of 7 valid transitions and achieves the highest valid transitions coverage
c) Is not correct. This sequence of five events covers 3 different transitions (both “Available” events correspond to the same transition from S1 to S2; both “ChangeRoom” events correspond to the same transition from S2 to S1). This test case covers 3 out of 7 valid transitions
d) Is not correct. This sequence of five events does not represent a feasible test case, because after “Cancel” the system ends up in the End state and no further valid transitions can be executed

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is a new product. You probably do not have a checklist yet and test conditions might not be known due to missing requirements
b) Is not correct. This is a new product. You probably do not have enough information to make correct error guesses
c) Is correct. Exploratory testing is most useful when there are few known specifications and/or there is a pressing timeline for testing
d) Is not correct. Branch testing is time-consuming, and your management is asking about some test results now. Also, branch testing does not involve domain knowledge

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This acceptance criterion describes what rules or regulations the system must adhere to (in this case, the right to be forgotten). This is an example of a rule-oriented acceptance criterion
b) Is correct. This acceptance criterion describes an example scenario that must be realizable by the system. This is an example of a scenario-oriented acceptance criterion
c) Is not correct. This sentence looks more like a line of code that implements some business rule. Acceptance criteria should be written in collaboration with business representatives, and therefore should be written in language they understand. This sentence will most likely be unintelligible to these stakeholders
d) Is not correct. This acceptance criterion describes what rules or regulations the system must adhere to and how compliance will be ensured. Therefore, this is an example of a rule-oriented acceptance criterion, not a scenario-based acceptance criterion

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. It is impossible to prove that there are no defects anymore in the system under test. See testing principle 1
b) Is not correct. See testing principle 7
c) Is correct. Testing finds defects and failures which reduces the level of risk and at the same time gives more confidence in the quality level of the test object
d) Is not correct. It is impossible to test all combinations of inputs (see testing principle 2)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct. This rule holds for all SDLC models

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is something that can (and should) be checked before the code is submitted to version control
b) Is not correct. This is something that can be checked after step (2) is performed, because merge conflict reporting can be done after the code is submitted and merged
c) Is not correct. This fits better as the entry criterion for step (3)
d) Is not correct. This fits better as the exit criterion for step (3)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. When a user reports a software failure, thanks to the unique identification of commits, it is possible to reassemble the files from the software version which was used by the user (as well as the corresponding versions of the test scripts) and thus reproduce the failure and locate the defect faster
b) Is not correct. If a change to the test environment causes unexpected issues during testing, configuration management allows testers to roll back to a previous version of the environment. This ensures that testing can continue without being affected by the change
c) Is not correct. Configuration management ensures that all identified documentation (e.g., requirement specifications) and software items are referenced unambiguously in test documentation (e.g., test plans)
d) Is correct. This is ensured by the defect management, not configuration management process

Explanation / Rationale

Risk assessment can use a quantitative or qualitative approach, or a mix of them. In the quantitative approach the risk level is calculated as the multiplication of risk likelihood and risk impact. So, Risk level = Risk likelihood * Risk impact
Then, Risk impact = Risk level / Risk likelihood.
In our case, Risk impact = $1,000 / 50% = $1,000 / 0.5 = $2,000.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

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 to be checked
c) Is correct. The list of user interface best practices is the list of test conditions to be systematically checked
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 not correct. Decision table testing is a black-box test technique, so it is specification-based, not structure-based – the test cases are not based on the decisions in the source code. In branch testing, the test cases are derived from knowledge of the control flow of the test object
b) Is not correct. Anticipation of potential defects is used in error guessing (an experience-based test technique), not in branch testing (a structure-based technique). In decision table testing, the test cases are derived from the specification that describes the business logic
c) Is not correct. If a test case is based on the knowledge of the control flow of the test object, it is a white-box test technique. Decision table testing is typically based on an analysis of business logic, so it is a black-box test technique. In branch testing, test cases are not derived from the specification – this would make it a black-box test technique. Branch testing is a white-box test technique, where test cases are derived based on the source code structure
d) Is correct. Decision table testing is a black-box test technique, so it is based on an analysis of the specified behavior of the test object without reference to its internal structure. Therefore, the test cases are independent of how the software is implemented. Branch testing is a white-box test technique, so test cases are based on an analysis of the test object’s internal structure and processing. As the test cases are dependent on how the software is designed and coded, they can only be created after the design or implementation of the test object

Explanation / Rationale

The average development effort is $900,000 and the average test effort is $90,000 (calculated from the four projects).
The average test-to-development effort ratio is 1:10 ($90,000 : $900,000), which means that historically, on average, the test effort is 10% of the development effort.
So if the development effort is estimated to be $800,000, the estimated test effort is estimated as:

10% * $800,000 = 0.1 * $800,000 = $80,000.

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

Explanation / Rationale

The ‘absence-of-defects fallacy’ is concerned with the idea that ensuring correctness in accordance with the requirements (i.e., verifying the absence of implementation defects) does not guarantee user satisfaction with the system. To address this it is also necessary to validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations, fulfills business objectives, and outperforms competing systems.
a) Is not correct. The ‘testing shows the presence, not the absence of defects’ principle explains that while testing can detect the existence of defects in the test object, it is not possible to demonstrate that there are no defects and, therefore, guarantee its correctness. Therefore, explaining that it is not possible for testing to show the absence of defects would partially address this principle, not the ‘absence-of-defects’ fallacy
b) Is correct. By supporting the end user to perform acceptance testing it should be possible to validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations
c) Is not correct. It is not possible to ensure that no implementation defects remain in the delivered system as the ‘testing shows the presence, not the absence of defects’ principle explains that while testing can detect the existence of defects in the test object, it is not possible to demonstrate that there are no defects and, therefore, guarantee its correctness
d) Is not correct. Modifying tests that cause no failures to ensure few defects remain is one way to address the ‘tests wear out’ principle. This principle is concerned with the idea that repeating identical tests on unaltered code is unlikely to uncover novel defects and therefore, modifying tests may be essential. This will not validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. In exploratory testing, test cases are usually created during the exploratory testing session, alongside test analysis, test implementation and test execution
b) Is not correct. In exploratory testing, tests are simultaneously designed, executed, and evaluated while the tester learns about the test object
c) Is not correct. Exploratory testing results depend heavily on the tester’s experience, so even if the results of exploratory testing can be used as a predictor of risk and used to assess whether there will be fewer or more defects, for example, compared to the previous exploratory testing session, they are not a good example of reliable defect prediction models that can predict the number of remaining defects
d) Is correct. During exploratory testing, the testers can use any techniques that they find useful

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Most work products can be examined using some form of static testing, and a contract must be interpretable by humans and so could be reviewed, which is a form of static testing
b) Is not correct. Most work products can be examined using some form of static testing, and a test plan must be interpretable by humans and so could be reviewed, which is a form of static testing
c) Is correct. Most work products can be examined using some form of static testing; however it is not suitable for work products that are too complex for human interpretation and should not be analyzed by tools, and encrypted code is too complex for humans and if it is properly encrypted it will not be analyzable by most tools
d) Is not correct. Most work products can be examined using some form of static testing, and a test charter must be interpretable by humans and so could be reviewed, which is a form of static testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is the task of the review leader
b) Is correct. This is the task of the management in a formal review
c) Is not correct. This is the task of the moderator
d) Is not correct. This is the task of the scribe

Explanation / Rationale

Only third-party executable code cannot be reviewed.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) It is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Traceability between the mitigated risks and passing test cases provides little information, because to be mitigated (by testing) the risks would need to have a corresponding passing test case. To be able to assess residual risk, traceability between all risks and test results needs to be available, so that the risks that do not have a corresponding passing test can be identified as the residual risks
b) Is correct. Traceability between user requirements and test execution results provides an indication of which user requirements have been tested and so provides a means of measuring project progress (in the context of testing) against business goals
c) Is not correct. It is not clear that failing test cases provide an indication of tester skills any more than passing test cases. It would partly depend on the test objective (e.g., building confidence or causing failures). Also, such measurement of testers based on passing and failing test cases can be counter-productive as it could cause the testers to optimize their testing based on that metric rather than the test objective
d) Is not correct. Traceability between the identified risks and written test conditions provides a means of determining which further test conditions need to be written. Determining which risks are worth testing is part of risk management, and risk mitigation in particular

Explanation / Rationale

Consider:

i. It is a Project risk
ii. It is a Product risk
iii. It is a Product risk
iv. It is a Project risk
v. It is a Product risk

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Defect management is no less expensive. Finding and fixing defects later in SDLC is more costly
b) Is not correct. This is a benefit of static testing
c) Is not correct. This is a benefit of static testing
d) Is not correct. This is a benefit of static testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Feedback can improve the test process, but if one only wants to improve future projects, the feedback does not need to come early or frequently
b) Is not correct. Feedback is not used to prioritize requirements
c) Is not correct. The quality of changes can be measured in multiple ways
d) Is correct. Early and frequent feedback allows for the early communication of potential quality problems

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the attributes:

• Specified for walkthroughs, technical reviews, and inspections; thus, the reviews being performed cannot be informal reviews
• The purpose of evaluating quality is one of the most important objectives of a walkthrough
• This is not allowed for inspections and is typically not done in technical reviews. A moderator is needed in walkthroughs and is allowed for informal reviews
• All types of reviews can include individual preparation (even informal reviews)
• All types of reviews can produce a review report, although informal reviews do not require documentation

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