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 an example of a risk monitoring activity, not risk analysis
b) Is not correct. This is an example of an architectural decision, not related with testing
c) Is not correct. This is an example of performing a quantitative risk analysis and is not related to thoroughness or scope of testing
d) Is correct. This shows how risk analysis impacts the thoroughness of testing (i.e., the level of detail)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The organization’s marketing team is unlikely to perform much testing (although in some organizations they may be involved with acceptance testing), so their average level of experience (most of which would be in marketing) is not likely to impact how testing is performed for a given test object
b) Is not correct. The level of knowledge of users that a new system is being built for them is unlikely to affect how testing is performed. Any user involvement that could affect how testing is performed is more likely to be as a result of decisions made by the testers, customer and project manager
c) Is correct. The number of years’ experience of the members of the performance testing team will help to determine the capabilities and knowledge (e.g., of different tools and defect types) that the team members will apply when they are testing
d) Is not correct. The organizational structure of the different end users (who may be varied) will change between users. So, it may not even be known when the application is being tested, and the end user’s organizational structure can thus have little effect on how the testing is performed

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach. If they waited until the next development phase, then unnecessary development (and test) work could be started on unreviewed, flawed work products
b) Is correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach
c) Is not correct. Testers typically review work products that form the test basis as part of test analysis, not before test analysis and design
d) Is not correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach. Waiting until they are published means that any defects that could be found by tester review will be in the published document

Explanation / Rationale

Branch testing is a white-box test technique in which the coverage items are branches. A branch is a transfer of control between two nodes in the control flow graph, which shows the possible sequences in which source code statements are executed in the test object. Each transfer of control can be either unconditional (i.e., straight-line code) or conditional (i.e., a decision outcome). Coverage is measured as the number of branches exercised by the test cases divided by the total number of branches, and is expressed as a percentage.
Thus:
a) Is not correct. A decision outcome is a conditional branch. For branch testing, X counts not only conditional, but also unconditional branches
b) Is not correct. Branch coverage counts not only conditional, but also unconditional branches
c) Is correct. Branch coverage is measured as the number of branches exercised by the test cases divided by the total number of branches, and is expressed as a percentage
d) Is not correct. Both X and Y count only conditional branches and do not take into account the unconditional branches

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. In sequential development models, in the initial phases, testers participate in requirement reviews, test analysis, and test design. The executable code is usually created in the later phases, so dynamic testing cannot be performed early in the SDLC
b) Is not correct. Static testing can always be performed early in the SDLC
c) Is not correct. Test planning should be performed early in the SDLC before the test project begins
d) Is not correct. Acceptance testing can be performed when there is a working product. In sequential SDLC models the working product is usually delivered late in the SDLC

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Confirmation testing to check that the updates have resulted in a correct implementation is necessary, however, it would then be sensible to perform regression testing to ensure that no defects have been introduced or uncovered in unchanged areas of the system
b) Is correct. Confirmation testing will check that the updates have resulted in a correct implementation, and then regression testing will be used to ensure that no defects have been introduced or uncovered in unchanged areas of the system
c) Is not correct. Regression testing should be used to ensure that no defects have been introduced or uncovered in unchanged areas of the system when the update was made, however it is also necessary to perform confirmation testing that will check that the updates have resulted in a correct implementation
d) Is not correct. Confirmation testing will check that the updates have resulted in a correct implementation, and regression testing will be used to ensure that no defects have been introduced or uncovered in unchanged areas of the system. However, when performed (i.e., when an update needs to be tested), confirmation testing precedes regression testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Value “1” covers “length incorrect” and covers “number of different digits incorrect”, however the system would not validate against this partition when hitting the first incorrect partition. Value “1111” covers “length correct” and “number of different digits incorrect. Value “1234” again covers “length correct” and also “number of different digits correct”
b) Is not correct. These three values achieve full coverage of the equivalence partitions, but full coverage can be achieved with two values
c) Is not correct. These two values only cover “number of different digits
d) Is not correct. These two values does not cover “number of different digits incorrect” equivalence partition

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. 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

Given the following description of test analysis:
To identify the features that require testing, the test basis is analyzed and defined as test conditions, which are then prioritized along with related risks. The systematic identification of test conditions as coverage items often involves using test techniques both during test analysis and as part of the test design activity.
From the above description, it can be seen that test techniques are often used in the test analysis and test design activities. Boundary value analysis and equivalence partitioning are test techniques.
a) Is not correct. Test implementation is not likely to involve the use of test techniques as it is mostly concerned with assembling test cases into test procedures, while test techniques create test cases
b) Is correct. Test design is likely to involve the use of test techniques to create test cases from test conditions and coverage items
c) Is not correct. Test execution is not likely to involve the use of test techniques as it is mostly concerned with executing test procedures (and so test cases), while test techniques create test cases
d) Is not correct. Test monitoring is not likely to involve the use of test techniques. Test monitoring is mostly concerned with ongoing checks to ensure the plan is being followed, while test techniques create test cases
e) Is correct. Test analysis is likely to involve the use of test techniques to identify test conditions

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. 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

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

Because TC1 and TC3 failed in Execution 1 (i.e., test (1) and test (3)), test (4) and test (6) are confirmation tests.
Because TC2 and TC3 failed in Execution 2 (i.e., tests (5) and (6)), test (8) and test (9) are also confirmation tests.
TC2 passed in Execution 1 (i.e., test (2)), so test (5) is a regression test.
TC1 passed in the Execution 2 (i.e., test (4)), so test (7) is also a regression test.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

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 manager is responsible for deciding what needs to be reviewed and allocating resources, such as staff and time, for the review
b) Is correct. The moderator (or facilitator) is responsible for ensuring that the review meetings run effectively, including managing time, mediating discussions, and creating a safe environment where everyone can voice their opinions freely
c) Is not correct. The chairperson is not a recognized role in reviews
d) Is not correct. The review leader is responsible for overseeing the review process, such as selecting the review team members, scheduling review meetings, and ensuring that the review is completed successfully

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 not correct. Risk impact and risk likelihood are independent
b) Is not correct. Risk impact and risk likelihood are independent
c) Is correct. Risk impact and risk likelihood are independent
d) Is not correct. We need both factors to calculate risk level

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 not correct. Finding and fixing defects in the test object is not a typical test objective as although identifying defects is an objective of testing, fixing defects is not a testing activity
b) Is not correct. Maintaining effective communications with developers is not a typical test objective as although it is useful in achieving other objectives of testing, such as providing stakeholders with information that enables them to make informed decisions, it is not a primary reason for performing testing
c) Is not correct. Validating that legal requirements have been met is not a typical test objective because validation is concerned with checking whether the system meets users’ and other stakeholders’ needs in its operational environment. Checking that legal requirements have been met is a form of verification
d) Is correct. Building confidence in the quality of the test object is achieved by executing tests that pass

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Checklists should contain test conditions to be verified. This is an example of an error, not a test condition; even if the tester was able to deduce some potential test conditions from the examples of errors, this error description is too general
b) Is not correct. Checklists should not contain items that are better suited as exit criteria. This is an example of an exit criterion
c) Is not correct. Checklists should not contain items that are too general. This is a very general item, which practically describes the goal of testing
d) Is correct. This is an example of a test condition that can be checked by a human

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Strong communication skills, active listening, and teamwork abilities enable a tester to interact effectively with all stakeholders, however a deep knowledge of a variety of computer games that allowed them to get on well with one developer is not an example of a generic skill useful to testers
b) Is correct. Domain knowledge that can be used to understand and communicate with end-users and business representatives is one of the generic skills required by testers. A tester with experience as a pilot would make them better able to appreciate the acceptance criteria for the helicopter control system
c) Is not correct. Although programming skills could be considered as technical knowledge which can increase efficiency when utilizing some test tools, it is unlikely that these skills would improve their communication with business analysts
d) Is not correct. Although thoroughness, attention to detail, curiosity, and a methodical approach to identifying hard-to-find defects are all useful generic skills for testers, it is doubtful they would be generating test cases prior to starting exploratory testing. This is because one of the main tenets of exploratory testing is that the test cases are generated during the testing, not scripted in advance

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed tool categories:

i. Collaboration tools – facilitate communication. Communication does not include the facilitation of test execution
ii. DevOps tools - support the DevOps delivery pipeline, workflow tracking, automated build process(es) and CI/CD. The delivery pipeline and CI/CD both include the facilitation of test execution, such as component testing for CI
iii. Management tools – increase the test process efficiency by facilitating management of the SDLC, requirements, tests, defects and configuration. The management of these items does not include the facilitation of test execution
iv. Non-functional testing tools – allow the tester to perform non-functional testing that is difficult or impossible to perform manually. Non-functional testing can include both static testing and dynamic testing, including test execution
v. Test design and implementation tools – facilitate generation of test cases, test data and test procedures. The generation of this testware does not include the facilitation of test execution

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct. Both DevOps tools (ii) and Non-functional testing tools (iv) facilitate test execution
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. A lack of usability provided through the user interface can be detected through a review using a suitable checklist, but the lack of usability can also be identified by getting several typical users to dynamically test the user interface and provide feedback on its usability
b) Is correct. A code review can detect code that cannot be reached by any path, however dynamic tests can only exercise reachable code and cannot determine that code cannot be reached without running every possible combination of inputs and input states, which is impractical for real code
c) Is not correct. Poor response times for most of the expected users are difficult to determine without executing the code (i.e., by static testing), so in this situation dynamic testing could find a defect, but static testing is unlikely to find it
d) Is not correct. A review of the code by someone who is aware of the required features could detect that the required features had not been implemented in the code, and dynamic testing could also be used to determine that these required features had not been implemented

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. The paragraph contains information on test levels and exit criteria, which are part of the test approach
b) Is not correct. The paragraph contains information on test levels and exit criteria, which are part of the test approach
c) Is not correct. The paragraph contains information on test levels and exit criteria, which are part of the test approach
d) Is correct. The paragraph contains information on test levels and exit criteria, which are part of the test approach

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

a) Is not correct. The fact that the requirement about the system’s performance comes directly from the client and that the performance is important from the business point of view (i.e., high priority) does not make these tests functional, because they do not check “what” the system does, but “how” (i.e., how fast the orders are processed)
b) Is correct. This is an example of performance testing, a type of non-functional testing
c) Is not correct. From the scenario we do not know if interacting with the user interface is a part of the test conditions. But even if we did, the main test objective of these tests is to check the performance, not the usability
d) Is not correct. We do not need to know the internal structure of the code to perform the performance testing. One can execute performance efficiency tests without structural knowledge

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed example defects:

i. Two different parts of the design specification disagree due to the complexity of the design – this is an example of a specification defect, which includes inconsistencies, ambiguities, contradictions, omissions, inaccuracies, and duplications, which can most easily be found by static testing
ii. A response time is too long and so makes users lose patience – this is an example of a response time defect, which can only be detected in practice by executing the program and measuring the response time, which can most easily be found by dynamic testing
iii. A path in the code cannot be reached during execution - this is an example of a coding defect, which includes variables with undefined values, undeclared variables, duplicated or unreachable code, and excessive code complexity, which can most easily be found by static testing
iv. A variable is declared but never subsequently used in the program - this is an example of a coding defect, which includes variables with undefined values, undeclared variables, duplicated or unreachable code, and excessive code complexity, which can most easily be found by static testing
v. The amount of memory needed by the program to generate a report is too high – this is an example of a performance defect, which can only be detected in practice by executing the program and measuring the memory used, which can most easily be found by dynamic testing

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct. The correct match for static testing is i, iii, and iv

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

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

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

a) Is correct. Obtaining feedback from stakeholders early and often in the software development process can be highly beneficial. It facilitates early communication of potential quality issues, can prevent misunderstandings about requirements, and ensures that any changes in stakeholder requirements are understood and implemented sooner
b) Is not correct. The feedback is from stakeholders, and them providing feedback is unlikely to improve their understanding of their own user requirements
c) Is not correct. Obtaining feedback from stakeholders early and often in the software development process can be highly beneficial. It facilitates early communication of potential quality issues, can prevent misunderstandings about requirements, and ensures that any changes in stakeholder requirements are understood and implemented sooner. However, because changes in requirements can be understood and implemented sooner, it does not mean that unlimited changes to requirements are encouraged
d) Is not correct. The feedback is from stakeholders and does not cover communication to them. Communications to end users could include them being told about which requirements will not be implemented prior to release, but ideally this should not happen at all

Explanation / Rationale

The equivalence partitions are: {…, 99, 100}, {101, 102, …, 198, 199}, {200, 201, …}.
Thus, there are 4 boundary values, which are: 100, 101, 199 and 200.
In 2-value BVA, for each boundary value there are two coverage items (the boundary value and its closest neighbor belonging to the adjacent partition). As the closest neighbors are also boundary values in the adjacent partition, then there are just four coverage items.

Thus:
a) Is not correct. Only 100 and 200 are valid coverage items for 2-value BVA, so we achieve 50% coverage
b) Is not correct. Only 100 and 200 are valid coverage items for 2-value BVA, so we achieve 50% coverage
c) Is not correct. Only 100 and 101 are valid coverage items for 2-value BVA, so we achieve 50% coverage
d) Is correct. 101, 199 and 200 are valid coverage items for 2-value BVA, so we achieve 75% coverage

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The expected result is “the application should accept the provided input and create the user”. The actual result is “The application hangs up after entering “Test input. $ä””.
b) Is not correct. There is a reference to the test case and to the related requirement and it states that the defect is rejected. Also, the defect status would not be very helpful for the developers
c) Is correct. We do not know in which test environment the anomaly was detected, and we also do not know which application (and its version) is affected
d) Is not correct. The defect report states that the anomaly is urgent, that it is a global issue (i.e., many, if not all, test administration accounts are affected) and states the impact is high for business stakeholders

Explanation / Rationale
a) Is not correct. Retrospectives are used to capture lessons learned and to improve the development and testing process, not to document the acceptance criteria
b) Is correct. This is the standard way to document acceptance criteria
c) Is not correct. Verbal communication does not allow to physically document the acceptance criteria as part of a user story (”card” aspect in the 3C’s model)
d) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria are related to a user story, not a test plan. Also, acceptance criteria are the conditions that have to be fulfilled to decide if the user story is complete. Risks are not such conditions

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The feedback is from stakeholders (e.g., business representative, end user), not from developers, so this feedback is not likely to inform managers which developers are more or less productive
b) Is not correct. Early and frequent feedback from stakeholders is not used by project managers to prioritize how they interact with the different stakeholders
c) Is correct. Obtaining feedback from stakeholders early and often in the software development process can be highly beneficial as it facilitates early communication of potential quality issues, can prevent misunderstandings about requirements, and ensures that any changes in stakeholder requirements are understood and implemented sooner
d) Is not correct. Early and frequent feedback can prevent the development of a product that does not meet stakeholder needs, and results in costly rework and missed deadlines, so, ideally there should be no delay. Also, the feedback is from stakeholders (not to them), which includes the end users, so the end users providing feedback will not aid the end users’ understanding

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. The basic concept behind error guessing is that the tester tries to guess what errors may have been made by the developer and what defects may be in the test object based on past experience (and sometimes checklists)
b) Is not correct. Although a testers who used to be a developer may use their personal experience to help them when performing error guessing, the test technique is not based on prior knowledge of development
c) Is not correct. Error guessing is not a usability technique for guessing how users may fail to interact with the test object
d) Is not correct. Duplicating the development task has several flaws that make it impractical, such as the tester having equivalent skills to the developer and the time involved to perform the development. It is not error guessing