Explanation / Rationale

There are three equivalence partitions: {…, –2, –1}, {0, 1, 2}, {3, 4, …}.
For 2-value BVA all the boundary values for all the equivalence partitions must be covered.
The boundary values are –1 (for the “temperature too low” partition), 0, 2 (for the “temperature OK” partition) and 3 (for the “temperature too high” partition).

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct. The correct option is: –1, 0, 2, 3
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. 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

a) Is not correct. The test pyramid emphasizes having a larger number of tests at the lower test levels
b) Is correct. It is not true that near the top of pyramid, test automation should be more formal
c) Is not correct. Usually component testing and component integration testing are automated using API-based tools
d) Is not correct. For system testing and acceptance testing, the automated tests are typically created using GUI-based tools

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

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

The five listed descriptions and the corresponding review process activities are:

1. This describes part of the ‘communication and analysis’ activity
2. This describes part of the ‘fixing and reporting’ activity
3. This describes part of the ‘individual review’ activity
4. This describes part of the ‘planning’ activity
5. This describes part of the ‘review initiation’ activity

The generic review process from ISO/IEC 20246, which is outlined in the syllabus, comprises the following activities in this logical order:

• Planning (4)
• Review initiation (5)
• Individual review (3)
• Communication and analysis (1)
• Fixing and reporting (2)

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct. The correct sequence of activities is: 4 – 5 – 3 – 1 – 2
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This should be a team activity and not overruled by one team member
b) Is correct. If test estimates are not the same, but the variation in the results is small, applying rules like “accept the number with the most votes” can be applied
c) Is not correct. There is no consensus yet as some say 13, others say 8
d) Is not correct. A feature should not be removed only because the team cannot agree on the test estimates

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

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

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

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 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

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

The testware under consideration is a test charter

Test charters are the output from test design
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct

Explanation / Rationale

Using the three-point estimation technique, the final estimate (E) is calculated as:

E = (a + 4*m + b) / 6,

where a is the most optimistic estimate, m is the most likely estimate, and b is the most pessimistic estimate.

Thus:
a) Is correct. In this case, the estimate for executing a single test case is:

E = (1h + 4*3h + 8h) / 6 = 3.5 hours

So, the total time needed for the tester to execute 4 test cases is:

3.5h * 4 = 14 hours

b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Considering each of the listed roles:

1. Scribe (or Recorder) - responsible for gathering feedback from reviewers and documenting review information, such as decisions made, and any new anomalies identified during the review meeting. (Records review information, such as decisions and new anomalies found during the review meeting - B)
2. Review Leader - responsible for overseeing the review process, such as selecting the review team members, scheduling review meetings, and ensuring that the review is completed successfully.
(Takes overall responsibility for the review such as organizing when and where the review will take place - D)
3. Facilitator (or Moderator) - 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. (Ensures the effective running of review meetings and the setting up of a safe review environment - A)
4. Manager - responsible for deciding what needs to be reviewed and allocating resources, such as staff and time, for the review. (Decides what is to be reviewed and provides resources, such as staff and time for the review - C)

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. We do not accept the risk; concrete actions are proposed
b) Is not correct. No contingency plans are proposed
c) Is correct. The proposed actions are related to testing, which is a form of risk mitigation
d) Is not correct. Risk is not transferred but mitigated

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. In this case one test case is still needed since there is at least one (unconditional) branch to be covered
b) Is not correct. Covering only unconditional branches does not imply covering all conditional branches
c) Is not correct. 100% branch coverage implies 100% statement coverage, not otherwise. For example, for an IF decision without the ELSE, one test is enough to achieve 100% statement coverage, but it only achieves 50% branch coverage
d) Is correct. Each decision outcome corresponds to a conditional branch, so 100% branch coverage implies 100% decision coverage

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Quality should be the responsibility of everyone working on the project and not the sole responsibility of the test team
b) Is not correct. First, it is not a benefit if an external test team does not meet delivery deadlines, and second, there is no reason to believe that external test teams will feel they do not have to meet strict delivery deadlines
c) Is not correct. It is bad practice for the test team to work in complete isolation, and we would expect an external test team to be concerned with changing project requirements and communicating well with developers
d) Is correct. Specifications are never perfect, meaning that assumptions will have to be made by the developer. An independent tester is useful in that they can challenge and verify the assumptions and subsequent interpretation made by the developer

Explanation / Rationale

“test” and “error” transitions cannot occur in one test case.
Neither can both “done” transitions.
This means we need at least three test cases to achieve transition coverage. For example:

TC1: test, done
TC2: run, error, done
TC3: run, pause, resume, pause, done

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is done by the testers
b) Is not correct. The product backlog is built and maintained by the product owner
c) Is not correct. This is done by the development team
d) Is not correct. This is a managerial role
e) Is correct. This is done by the testers

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

Explanation / Rationale

Considering:

• Usability testing is in Q3 (1 – C)
• Component testing is in Q1 (2 – A)
• Functional testing is in Q2 (3 – B)
• Reliability testing is in Q4 (4 – D)

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

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 correct. This test case is related to acceptance criteria 2 and 3, because we check if we can set price range (acceptance criterion 2) and if the results update dynamically after adjusting the price range filter (acceptance criterion 3)
b) Is not correct. This test case is not related to any of the acceptance criteria. It checks if the filter dynamically sets the default minimum and maximum price range, and not that a customer can do it
c) Is not correct. This test case is not related to any of the acceptance criteria. It checks the currency exchange feature, which is not discussed in this user story
d) Is not correct. This test case is not related to any of the acceptance criteria. It checks the application’s compatibility with different browsers, which is not discussed in this user story

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Regression tests increase in number as the project progresses, as new regression tests are typically required as changes are made to the system. Similarly, the number of confirmation tests also typically increases as the project progresses as new confirmation tests are needed for each fix made to a system
b) Is not correct. It is the other way round. Confirmation tests are created and run when the test object is fixed, and regression tests are (ideally) run whenever the test object is enhanced (changed)
c) Is not correct. Confirmation testing verifies that a defect has been fixed correctly and so is concerned with testing changes to the test object. However, regression testing ensures that changes (including changes to the operational environment) do not have negative effects on unchanged software and so does not check that the operational environment remains unchanged
d) Is correct. Regression testing ensures that changes do not have negative effects on unchanged software. Confirmation testing verifies that a defect has been fixed – and so is concerned with changed code

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. We want to check that Special users have the rights of Regular users, so we need to test access rights for a Special user, not for a Regular user
b) Is not correct. We want to check that Special users have the rights of Regular users, so we need to test access rights for a Special user, not for a Regular user
c) Is not correct. There is no floor 5 described in the acceptance criteria. The test cases should not extend the scope of the user story. But even if we would like to perform negative testing, this test is not directly related to AC3
d) Is correct. This way we can check if a Special user can access floors which are accessible to a Regular user

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

a) Is not correct. The detection of additional high-severity defects would be a benefit of test automation, rather than a risk
b) Is not correct. The provision of measures that are too complicated for humans to derive themselves is normally considered to be a benefit of test automation
c) Is correct. If the test automation is incompatible with the development platform, then it will not be able to integrate them, and, for instance, pass test inputs to the test object and receive test results from the test object
d) Is not correct. Substantially reduced test execution times would normally be considered a benefit that is provided by test automation

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

a) Is not correct. Quality control applies to all development activities, meaning that every software development activity has a corresponding test activity. However, here we are attempting to equate test levels with development levels, and, although we know what is meant by ‘test levels’, there is no common understanding of the term ‘ development level’
b) Is not correct. Every software development activity has a corresponding test activity; however test objectives are quite different. For instance, there might be a test objective of ensuring that a test object adheres to a contractual requirement that a certain type of testing must be performed before delivery. In this case there is no reason for there to be a corresponding development objective
c) Is not correct. Quality control applies to all development activities, meaning that every software development activity has a corresponding test activity. However, the same symmetry does not apply to testing and user activities. For instance, for some systems it is difficult to even identify the end users. Also, some test activities are focused on developers (e.g., testing for ease of maintainability), which has no user aspect to it
d) Is correct. Quality control applies to all development activities, meaning that every software development activity has a corresponding test activity

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. ‘The capability of generating test cases without access to the test basis’ is not possible. The generation of test cases by either testers or tools requires access to the test basis
b) Is not correct. ‘The achievement of increased coverage through more objective assessment’ is not a direct benefit of test automation. Test automation will provide more objective assessment of coverage, however that objective assessment will not increase the coverage. Only by using the results of the coverage to write further test cases can the coverage possibly be increased
c) Is not correct. ‘The increase in test execution times available with higher processing power’ is a contradictory statement as higher processing power would normally reduce execution times, and increased execution times are not a benefit as the testing would take longer
d) Is correct. The prevention of human errors through greater consistency and repeatability is a benefit of test automation as test automation cannot suffer from human errors. For instance, it means that tests are consistently derived from requirements, test data is created in a systematic manner, and tests are executed by a tool in the same order with the same frequency

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

a) Is not correct. Usability testing is business facing testing that critiques the product (Q3)
b) Is not correct. Functional testing is business facing testing (Q2)
c) Is not correct. User acceptance testing is business facing testing that critiques the product (Q3)
d) Is correct. Component integration testing is technology facing testing that supports the team (guides the development) (Q1)

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

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