Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. A line with a defect, when executed, does not have to cause a failure. For example, a line x := y / z will cause a failure only when z equals 0
b) Is not correct. 100% statement coverage does not guarantee 100% branch coverage. For example, a test case with x=0 for the code

1. IF (x=0) THEN
2. A;
3. ENDIF

achieves 100% statement coverage but does not cover the branch from 1 to 3
c) Is correct. 100% statement coverage means that each executable statement was executed at least once
d) Is not correct. The removed test case may provide coverage of some statements that are not covered by either of the other two test cases, in which case the remaining two test cases together will not achieve 100% statement coverage

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Performing only black-box testing does not provide a measure of actual code coverage. White-box coverage measures provide an objective measurement of coverage and provide the necessary information to allow additional tests to be generated to increase this coverage, and subsequently increase confidence in the code
b) Is not correct. This statement is correct, but it has nothing to do with black-box testing
c) Is not correct. In general there are no subsumes relationships between white-box and black-box techniques
d) Is not correct. White-box techniques are used to design tests based on the test object itself, while black-box techniques are used to design tests based on the specification. Therefore, there is no relation between coverage items derived from these two types of techniques

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

The domain for the password length has three equivalence partitions:

• passwords too short {0, 1, …, 4, 5}
• passwords OK {6, 7, …, 11, 12}
• passwords too long {13, 14, …}

To achieve full coverage for 3-value BVA we need to test the following values:

0, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Since 2-value BVA is already covered, this means that we have already tested the passwords of length:

0, 5, 6, 12 and 13.

This means that the additional lengths that need to be covered to move from 2-value to 3-value are:

1, 4, 7, 11 and 14.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Test progress reports are mostly used during test monitoring and control, and test completion, not during test design
b) Is correct. A test completion report is prepared during test completion, when a project, test level, or test type is complete and when, ideally, its exit criteria have been met. This report uses information from test progress reports and other data
c) Is not correct. Test progress reports are mostly used during test monitoring and control, and test completion, not during test analysis
d) Is not correct. Test progress reports are most used during test monitoring and control, and test completion, not during test planning

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Dynamic testing does cause failures (from which defects can then be located and fixed). However, debugging is concerned with locating defects and fixing these defects. Therefore, debugging does not fix failures
b) Is not correct. Both testing and debugging contribute to improving the quality of the test object, so should really both be considered positively. Debugging is generally considered to be a positive activity as it is fixing something. Dynamic testing does involve intentionally causing the test object to fail, which is why some people consider it a negative activity, but that is a very narrow view (and not one typically held by testers). Both positive and negative test cases are possible. Positive test cases check that the test object correctly performs what it is supposed to do, while negative testing checks that the test object does not do what it is not supposed to do
c) Is correct. Testing determines that defects exist either directly through observation of the defect in reviews (or by a tool in static analysis), or indirectly by causing a failure in dynamic testing. Debugging is a separate activity from testing (normally performed by developers) and is concerned with locating defects (only for dynamic testing) and fixing the defects
d) Is not correct. The causes of defects are typically human errors. Testing finds defects either directly through static testing, or indirectly by causing failures in dynamic testing, and debugging fixes defects. So, testing does not find the cause of defects and debugging does not fix the causes of defects

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed review types:

1. Technical review - This type of review is performed by technically qualified reviewers and led by a moderator. The objectives are to gain consensus and make decisions on technical problems while also evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, generating new ideas, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and detecting anomalies
2. Informal review - The main objective is to detect anomalies. The process is not defined and does not require formal documented output
3. Inspection - This is the most formal review type, and it follows the complete generic review process. The primary objective is to find the most anomalies, and other objectives include evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and collecting metrics that can be used to enhance the software development life cycle (SDLC), including the inspection process. The author cannot act as the review leader or scribe
4. Walkthrough - Led by the author, this type of review serves various objectives such as evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, educating reviewers, gaining consensus, generating new ideas, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and detecting anomalies. Reviewers might perform an individual review before the walkthrough, but this is not mandatory

A. Includes objectives such as gaining consensus, generating new ideas, and motivating authors to improve (A)
B. The main objective is detecting potential defects and it generates no formal documented output (D)
C. The main objective is detecting potential defects and it requires metrics collection to support process improvement (C)
D. Includes objectives such as educating reviewers, gaining consensus, generating new ideas and detecting potential defects (B)

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct. The correct match is: 1A, 2D, 3C, 4B
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. A fundamental strength that all white-box test techniques share is that the entire software implementation is taken into account during testing, which facilitates defect detection even when the software specification is vague, outdated or incomplete. This means white-box testing can find defects such as an extra feature added to the code (either accidentally or deliberately) that is not supposed to be there, which black-box testing cannot detect
b) Is not correct. The fact that the coverage can be precisely defined is not the right reason. The achieved level of coverage would have much more impact than the possibility to measure the coverage
c) Is not correct. If the software does not implement one or more requirements, white-box testing is unlikely to detect the resulting defects of omission
d) Is not correct. While this is true, this is not the right answer, because there is no connection between the capability to be used in both static testing and dynamic testing and the claim that white-box testing facilitates defect detection with poor specifications

Explanation / Rationale

i. Is true. The SDLC has an influence on the test process
ii. Is false. The number of defects detected in previous projects may have some influence, but this is not as significant as i, iii and iv
iii. Is true. The identified product risks are one of the most important factors influencing the test process
iv. Is true. Regulatory requirements are important factors influencing the test process
v. Is false. The test environment has no significant influence on the test process

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

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

a) Is correct. 19 covers the “no discount” partition, 20 covers the “50% discount” partition, and 30 covers the “10% discount” partition. These three values cover all three of the valid equivalence partitions
b) Is not correct. 11 and 12 cover the “no discount” partition, while 20 covers the “50% discount” partition, so covering two of the three valid equivalence partitions
c) Is not correct. 1 covers the “no discount” partition, while 10 and 50 cover the “10% discount” partition. The “50% discount” partition is not covered, so overall two of the three valid equivalence partitions are covered
d) Is not correct. 29 and 31 cover the “no discount” partition, while 10 and 30 cover the “10% discount” partition. The “50% discount” partition is not covered, so overall two of the three valid equivalence partitions are covered

Explanation / Rationale

Considering:

• The test basis for acceptance testing is the user’s business needs (1D)
• Communication between components is tested during component integration testing (2B)
• Failures in logic can be found during component testing (3A)
• Business rules are the test basis for system testing (4C)

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Estimating the test effort is part of test planning
b) Is correct. This is an example of defining test conditions which is a part of test analysis
c) Is not correct. Using test techniques to derive coverage items is a part of test design
d) Is not correct. Reporting defects found during dynamic testing is a part of test execution

Explanation / Rationale

In the three-point estimation technique:

E = (optimistic + 4*most likely + pessimistic)/6

E = (2+(4*11)+14)/6 = 10

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Test environment readiness is a resource availability criterion; hence it belongs to the entry criteria
b) Is not correct. This is a resource availability criterion; hence it belongs to the entry criteria
c) Is correct. Estimated defect density is a measure of diligence; hence it belongs to the exit criteria.
d) Is not correct. Requirements translated into a given format result in testable requirements; hence it belongs to the entry criteria
e) Is correct. Automation of regression tests is a completion criterion; hence it belongs to the exit criteria

Explanation / Rationale

Let us refer to the transitions with E1, …, E5 as in the picture. The variable N denotes the number of elements currently stored. Each “Add” event increases it by 1, and each “Remove” event decreases it by 1. Notice, that when the “Add” event occurs while being in the NOT FULL state, the state changes to FULL only if N=2. If N<2, the system stays in the NOT FULL state. If N=0, no “Remove” action is possible. Similarly, if N=3, no “Add” action is possible.

Test a) can be written as E1, E3, E3, E2, E4 (so covers 4 out of 5 valid transitions, achieving 80% valid transitions coverage).
Test b) is infeasible, because after the first three “Add” actions the system is in the FULL state and there is no valid transition going from FULL triggered by the “Add” event. After the first three transitions only 60% of valid transitions coverage is achieved.
Test c) can be written as E1, E2, E4, E5, E3 (so covers 5 out of 5 valid transitions, achieving 100% valid transitions coverage).
Test d) can be written as E1, E2, E4, E5, E4 (so covers 4 out of 5 valid transitions, achieving 80% valid transitions coverage).

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

Explanation / Rationale

The following three transitions:

“REQUESTING -> CONFIRMED”
“WAITING LIST -> CONFIRMED”
“WAITING LIST -> END”

cannot appear in the same test case, which suggests that at least three test cases are required. All the other transitions can appear in combination with one or more of these three transitions, so we need a minimum of three test cases. In fact, only three sequences are possible:

TC1: START (Room request) → REQUESTING (Available) → CONFIRMED (Pay) → END
TC2: START (Room request) → REQUESTING (Not available) → WAITING LIST (Available) → CONFIRMED (Pay) → END
TC3: START (Room request) → REQUESTING (Not available) → WAITING LIST (Cancel) → END

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

Explanation / Rationale

Consider:

i. Is true. Faster product release and faster time to market is an advantage of DevOps
ii. Is false. Typically, we need less effort for manual tests because of the use of test automation
iii. Is true. Constant availability of executable software is an advantage
iv. Is false. More regression tests are needed
v. Is false. Not everything is automated and setting up a test automation framework is expensive

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

Explanation / Rationale

According to the dependencies, SEARCH tests must be executed first, then VIEW tests, then ADD tests and, at the end, ORDER tests. Within each of these groups the order is determined by the priorities of the test cases.
So, TC1 must be executed first, then TC2, then TC4 followed by TC3, and then TC5 as the last one.
So, the ordering is: TC1, TC2, TC4, TC3, TC5.
Thus:
a) Is correct. TC3 will be the fourth test case executed
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Retrospectives are more useful for identifying improvement opportunities and have little importance for clients
b) Is not correct. Business representatives are not giving feedback about the product itself. Therefore, there is no financial gain to the organization
c) Is correct. Regularly conducted retrospectives, when appropriate follow up activities occur, are critical to continual improvement of development and testing
d) Is not correct. Courage and respect are values of Extreme Programming and are not closely related to retrospectives

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is important, but not as important as test environment elements
b) Is correct. The important thing that is missing is the identification of the browser and device used for the testing. The browser and device information are important because such a defect can be browser- or device-specific. For example, a login button may work fine on one browser (or one version of a specific browser) but not on another. Therefore, the browser and device information can help the developers to reproduce the issue and find the root cause of the problem more quickly
c) Is not correct. The test object is identified (WebShop v0.99)
d) Is not correct. The impact is included – this is severity (high)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The benefits of retrospectives include team bonding and learning from sharing issues, and better collaboration between developers and testers through reviewing and improving working practices. Calling out individuals who a team member may feel did not fully contribute to achieving quality as required by the whole-team approach will not contribute to this team bonding and collaboration
b) Is correct. During the retrospective, the group discusses what aspects of the project were successful and should be retained, as well as areas that could be improved, and how to do so
c) Is not correct. The benefits of retrospectives are based on increased effectiveness and efficiency through process improvements; they are not an opportunity to let off steam and criticize management and customers. Also, the results are recorded, usually in the test completion report, so anything said in the meeting could be read by other stakeholders
d) Is not correct. Retrospectives are meetings that are typically held at the end of an iteration where team members will focus on discussing quality-related issues that have occurred in the current iteration. They are not used for making plans or technical decisions for the next iteration; this would be done in the iteration planning meeting at the start of the next iteration

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to secure management's support for the review process, however that does not mean that they should participate as reviewers
b) Is correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to break the work product into parts that are small enough to be reviewed in a reasonable timescale to prevent reviewers from losing focus during individual review or review meetings
c) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to clearly define objectives and measurable exit criteria, without evaluating participants
d) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to break down the review into smaller chunks to prevent reviewers from losing focus during individual review or review meetings. So you should not plan to cover one document per review

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Risk monitoring is part of risk control, not risk analysis
b) Is not correct. Risk identification itself does not allow us to implement risk mitigation activities. The mitigating actions are defined during the risk control phase
c) Is correct. This is an example of how risk analysis influences the thoroughness and scope of testing
d) Is not correct. Coverage items are derived using test techniques, not through risk analysis

Explanation / Rationale

There are two equivalence partitions that are not yet covered, which correspond to “student discount” and “pensioner discount”.
a) Is not correct. CY – BY = 64, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “no discount” partition
b) Is correct. CY – BY = 65, so these inputs correspond to a partition that is not yet covered (“pensioner discount”)
c) Is not correct. CY – BY = –65, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “error message” partition
d) Is not correct. CY – BY = 18, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “no discount” partition
e) Is correct. CY – BY = 0, so these inputs correspond to a partition that is not yet covered (“student discount”)

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

We want to run test cases according to their priorities, but we also need to consider the dependencies.
If we only consider priorities, we want to first run TC 5 and TC 7 (highest priority), then TC 1, TC 3, and TC 4, and finally TC 2 and TC 6 (lowest priority).
However, in order to run TC 7, we need to first run TC 4.
In order to run TC 5, we need to run TC 4 and TC 2, but TC 2 is blocked by TC 1, which should be run prior to TC 2.
So, in order to run priority 1 test cases as early as possible, the first five test cases should be: TC 4 - TC 7 - TC 1 - TC 2 - TC 5.
Next, we need to run TC 3, because it has higher priority than TC 6.
Thus the full schedule will be TC 4 – TC 7 – TC 1 – TC 2 – TC 5 – TC 3 – TC 6.
So, the sixth test case will be TC 3.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Since 100% statement coverage is achieved, every statement, including the ones with defects, must have been executed and evaluated at least once
b) Is not correct. Coverage depends on what is tested, not on the number of test cases. For example, for code “if (x==0) y=1”, one test case (x=0) achieves 100% statement coverage, but two test cases (x=1) and (x=2) together achieve only 50% statement coverage
c) Is not correct. If there is a loop in the code there may be an infinite number of possible paths, so it is not possible to execute all the possible paths in the code
d) Is not correct. Exhaustive testing is not possible (see the seven testing principles section in the syllabus). For example, for code “input x; print x” any single test with arbitrary x achieves 100% statement coverage, but covers one input value

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. Test monitoring involves the ongoing checking of all activities and comparison of actual progress against the test plan. Test control involves taking the actions necessary to meet the test objectives of the test plan. No test data are prepared during these activities
b) Is not correct. Test analysis includes analyzing the test basis to identify test conditions and prioritize them. Test design includes elaborating the test conditions into test cases and other testware. Test data are not prepared during these activities
c) Is correct. Test implementation includes creating or acquiring the testware necessary for test execution (e.g., test data)
d) Is not correct. Test completion activities occur at project milestones (e.g., release, end of iteration, test level completion), so it is too late for preparing test data

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The ‘tests wear out’ 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. By using high-level test conditions to generate new tests each time, the tests will not be identical and should not ‘wear out’
b) Is not correct. The ‘absence-of-defects fallacy’ principle is concerned with ensuring that users’ needs are fulfilled even if lots of testing is done and no defects are found (i.e., validation is also necessary). The use of high-level test conditions to generate test cases and execute tests does not directly address this concern
c) Is not correct. The ‘early testing saves time and money’ principle is concerned with fixing defects early on to prevent the occurrence of subsequent defects in derived work products, thereby reducing costs and the likelihood of failures. This is typically addressed by starting testing (both static and dynamic) as early as possible, but this is not addressed by using high-level test conditions to generate test cases and execute tests
d) Is not correct. The ‘Defects cluster together’ principle is concerned with the distribution of defects in a system, which typically follows a Pareto distribution. The use of high-level test conditions to generate test cases and execute tests does not address this concern, which is typically addressed by risk-based testing

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed test activities and their output testware:

A. Test analysis - prioritized test conditions (4) (e.g., acceptance criteria), and defect reports for defects identified in the test basis
B. Test design - prioritized test cases, test charters, coverage items (1), test data requirements, and test environment requirements
C. Test implementation - test procedures, automated test scripts, test suites, test data, test execution schedule (3), and test environment elements such as stubs, drivers, simulators, and service virtualizations
D. Test completion - test completion report, documented lessons learned, action items for improvement, and change requests (2) (as product backlog items)

Thus:
a) Is correct. The correct match is: 1B, 2D, 3C, 4A
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed risks and their mitigations:

1. Long system responses (1) can be tested in performance testing (B)
2. Changes of consumers’ preferences (2) are usually out of our control, so usually we accept this risk (A)
3. Flooding of the server room (3) can cause significant loss, so we should transfer the risk, e.g., by buying an insurance policy (D)
4. That patients above a certain age receive inaccurate reports (4) suggests a potential boundary problem, which can be effectively detected with techniques like BVA (C)

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct. The correct combinations of risk and mitigation are: 1B, 2A, 3D and 4C
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. In the whole-team approach, testers play a vital role by sharing their testing expertise with the team and guiding product development. They collaborate with other team members to achieve the desired quality levels and work with business representatives to create acceptance tests. Testers also partner with developers to determine the optimal test strategy and automation approaches
b) Is correct. By leveraging the diverse skill sets of each team member most effectively, the whole-team approach fosters superior team dynamics, promotes robust communication and collaboration, and generates a synergistic effect that benefits the entire project
c) Is not correct. The whole-team approach allows any team member with the requisite skills and knowledge to undertake any task, thus specialist team members are not an advantage of this approach
d) Is not correct. There is no specific guidance on the optimum size of teams using the whole-team approach, and there is no suggestion that larger teams are better

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 correct. The test plan may include test data requirements (as part of the test approach), but not the detailed test data for test cases. Test data is part of the test cases, not the test plan. Also, it is usually impossible to define such data when the test plan is created, because it is not exactly known what the components will look like
b) Is not correct. One of the purposes of a test plan is to help ensure that the performed test activities will meet the established criteria, by including entry criteria and exit criteria. The code coverage criteria are an example of such criteria for the component test level
c) Is not correct. Documentation templates are typical content of a test plan. This helps to facilitate communication between the stakeholders by defining a standard way of communicating or reporting
d) Is not correct. One of the purposes of a test plan is to demonstrate that testing will adhere to the existing test policy and test strategy, or to explain why the testing will deviate from them. This is an example of explaining the deviation, regarding the test levels that will be (or will not be) followed

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Component Test-Driven Development is not a correct example of a test-first approach to development
b) Is not correct. Integration Test-Driven Development is not a correct example of a test-first approach to development
c) Is not correct. System Test-Driven Development is not a correct example of a test-first approach to development
d) Is correct. Acceptance Test-Driven Development (ATDD) is a well-known example of a test-first approach to development

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

The ‘exhaustive testing is impossible’ principle is concerned with the fact that it is not feasible to test every possible variation of test inputs in all different circumstances, except in trivial cases. Instead, testing utilizes test techniques, test case prioritization, and risk-based testing to sample from the set of possibilities and focus testing efforts.
a) Is not correct. The principle states that it is not feasible to test everything except in trivial cases. Testing everything would require testing every possible variation of test inputs in all different circumstances, which is generally infeasible as there will be a practically infinite number. Testing every possible specified output will not address this problem as the relationship between inputs and specified outputs can be different for each test object. Sometimes there may be a practically infinite number of possible specified outputs (e.g., when there are several variables representing real numbers), whereas at other times there may be just two specified outputs, such as with a single variable that can be either true or false
b) Is not correct. The principle states that it is not feasible to test every possible variation of test inputs in all different circumstances. This is because for non-trivial systems there is a practically infinite number. Therefore, in practice, documenting all possible test input variations would be impractical as it would take an infinite length of time
c) Is not correct. Starting testing as early as possible with reviews and other static testing approaches will not address the problem of there being too many possible test cases. The ‘early testing saves time and money’ principle is concerned with fixing defects early on to prevent the occurrence of subsequent defects in derived work products, thereby reducing costs and the likelihood of failures
d) Is correct. The use of equivalence partitioning and boundary value analysis to generate test cases is one way to address the principle as these test techniques provide a systematic way to derive a finite subset of all possible test cases

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