This answer is correct because error guessing is a test design technique where the experience and intuition of the tester are used to anticipate where errors, defects and failures have occurred or are likely to occur, and to design test cases to expose them. Error guessing can be based on factors such as the complexity of the system or component, the known or suspected weaknesses of the system or component, the previous history of defects, or the common types of errors in the domain or technology. Error guessing can be used as a complementary technique to other more systematic or formal techniques, or when there is insufficient information or time to apply them. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.5

This answer is correct because the whole-team approach is a way of working in agile projects where all team members share the responsibility for the quality of the product, and collaborate on delivering value to the customer. The whole-team approach involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in planning, designing, developing, testing, and delivering the product. The whole-team approach fosters communication, feedback, learning, and continuous improvement within the team. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.1

• The testing of software does not demonstrate the absence of defects, but rather the presence of defects or the conformance of the software to the specified requirements1. Testing can never prove that the software is defect-free, as it is impossible to test all possible scenarios, inputs, outputs, and behaviors of the software2. Testing can only provide a level of confidence in the quality of the software, based on the coverage, effectiveness, and efficiency of the testing activities3.
• The other options are correct because:

References =

• 1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 10
• 2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 11
• 3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 12
• 4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 13
• 5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 97
• 6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 98
• 7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 14
• [8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 15
• [9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16
• [10] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 17
• [11] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 18
• [12] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 19

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0, the life cycle of a defect typically follows a sequence from its discovery to its closure. In the provided figure, it starts with S0 (New), moves to S1 (Assigned), then to S2 (Resolved), followed by S3 (Verified). If the defect is not fixed, it can be Re-opened (S5) and goes back for verification (S3). Once verified, it is Closed (S4). References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.4.3, Page 17.

• Looking for defects in a system does not require ignoring system details, but rather paying attention to them and understanding how they affect the system’s quality, functionality, and usability. Ignoring system details could lead to missing important defects or testing irrelevant aspects of the system.
• Identifying defects may be perceived as criticism against product, especially by the developers or stakeholders who are invested in the product’s success. However, identifying defects is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather a constructive feedback that helps to improve the product and ensure its alignment with the requirements and expectations of the users and clients.
• Looking for defects in system requires professional pessimism and curiosity, as testers need to anticipate and explore the possible ways that the system could fail, malfunction, or behave unexpectedly. Professional pessimism means being skeptical and critical of the system’s quality and reliability, while curiosity means being eager and interested in finding out the root causes and consequences of the defects.
• Testing is often seen as a destructive activity instead of constructive activity, as it involves finding and reporting the flaws and weaknesses of the system, rather than creating or enhancing it. However, testing is actually a constructive activity, as it contributes to the system’s improvement, verification, validation, and optimization, and ultimately to the delivery of a high-quality product that meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients.

The unscripted tests produced by the tester’s experience during the two-hour test session belong to the testing quadrant Q3. The testing quadrants are a classification of testing types based on two dimensions: the test objectives (whether the testing is focused on supporting the team or critiquing the product) and the test basis (whether the testing is based on the technology or the business). The testing quadrants are labeled as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, and each quadrant represents a different testing perspective, such as unit testing, acceptance testing, usability testing, or performance testing. The testing quadrant Q3 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of critiquing the product from the business perspective, such as exploratory testing, usability testing, user acceptance testing, alpha testing, beta testing, etc. The unscripted tests performed by the tester in the given scenario are examples of exploratory testing and usability testing, as they are based on the tester’s experience, intuition, and learning of the web application, and they focus on some specific usability issues, such as the user interface, the user satisfaction, the user feedback, etc. The other options are incorrect, because:

• The testing quadrant Q1 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of supporting the team from the technology perspective, such as unit testing, component testing, integration testing, system testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by developers or testers who have access to the source code, the design, the architecture, or the configuration of the software system, and they aim to verify the functionality, the quality, and the reliability of the software system at different levels of integration.
• The testing quadrant Q2 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of supporting the team from the business perspective, such as functional testing, acceptance testing, story testing, scenario testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by testers or customers who have access to the requirements, the specifications, the user stories, or the business processes of the software system, and they aim to validate that the software system meets the expectations and the needs of the users and the stakeholders.
• The testing quadrant Q4 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of critiquing the product from the technology perspective, such as performance testing, security testing, reliability testing, compatibility testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by testers or specialists who have access to the tools, the metrics, the standards, or the benchmarks of the software system, and they aim to evaluate the non-functional aspects of the software system, such as the efficiency, the security, the reliability, or the compatibility of the software system under different conditions or environments. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.3.1, Testing in Software Development Lifecycles
• ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Testing Quadrant, Exploratory Testing, Usability Testing, Unit Testing, Component Testing, Integration Testing, System Testing, Functional Testing, Acceptance Testing, Story Testing, Scenario Testing, Performance Testing, Security Testing, Reliability Testing, Compatibility Testing

This answer is correct because identifying potential anomalies in the work product under review is one of the tasks the Author is responsible for, as part of a typical formal review. The Author is the person who creates the work product to be reviewed, such as a requirement specification, a design document, or a test case. The Author’s tasks include preparing the work product for the review, identifying potential anomalies in the work product, and fixing the anomalies found in the work product after the review. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.1

The three-point test estimation technique is a method of estimating the test effort based on three initial estimates: the most optimistic, the most likely, and the most pessimistic. The technique uses a weighted average of these three estimates to calculate the final estimate, which is also known as the expected value. The formula for the expected value is:

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

Using the given values, the expected value is:

Expected value = (6 + 4 * 30 + 54) / 6 Expected value = 30 person hours

However, the expected value is not the only factor to consider when estimating the test effort. The technique also calculates the standard deviation, which is a measure of the variability or uncertainty of the estimates. The formula for the standard deviation is:

Standard deviation = (most pessimistic - most optimistic) / 6

Using the given values, the standard deviation is:

Standard deviation = (54 - 6) / 6 Standard deviation = 8 person hours

The standard deviation can be used to determine a range of possible values for the test effort, based on a certain level of confidence. For example, using a 68% confidence level, the range is:

Expected value ± standard deviation

Using the calculated values, the range is:

30 ± 8 person hours

Therefore, the final estimate is between 22 person hours and 38 person hours, which is option A.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.3.2, page 24-25; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 33.

The statement that refers to good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model is option D, which says that involvement of testers in work product reviews should occur as early as possible to take advantage of the early testing principle. Work product reviews are static testing techniques, in which the work products of the software development process, such as the requirements, the design, the code, the test cases, etc., are examined by one or more reviewers, with or without the author, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Involvement of testers in work product reviews can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. The early testing principle states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, and should be performed iteratively and continuously throughout the lifecycle. Applying the early testing principle can help to prevent, detect, and remove defects at an early stage, when they are easier, cheaper, and faster to fix, as well as to reduce the risk, the cost, and the time of the testing process. The other options are not good testing practices to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, but rather specific testing practices that may or may not be applicable or beneficial for testing, depending on the context and the objectives of the testing activities, such as:

• Tests should be written in executable format before the code is written and should act as executable specifications that drive coding: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with test-driven development, which is an approach to software development and testing, in which the developers write automated unit tests before writing the source code, and then refactor the code until the tests pass. Test-driven development can help to improve the quality, the design, and the maintainability of the code, as well as to provide fast feedback and guidance for the developers. However, test-driven development is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be feasible, suitable, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the requirements are unclear, unstable, or complex, when the test automation tools or skills are not available or adequate, when the testing objectives or levels are not aligned with the unit testing, etc.
• Test levels should be defined such that the exit criteria of one level are part of the entry criteria for the next level: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a linear and sequential order, with well-defined phases, deliverables, and dependencies. Test levels are the stages of testing that correspond to the levels of integration of the software system, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. Test levels should have clear and measurable entry criteria and exit criteria, which are the conditions that must be met before starting or finishing a test level. In sequential software development models, the exit criteria of one test level are usually part of the entry criteria for the next test level, to ensure that the software system is ready and stable for the next level of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be relevant, flexible, or efficient for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in an iterative and incremental order, with frequent changes, feedback, and adaptations, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, when the test levels are not clearly defined or distinguished, or when the test levels are performed in parallel or concurrently, etc.
• Test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with uniform software development models, such as the spiral model, the incremental model, or the prototyping model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a cyclical and repetitive manner, with similar phases, deliverables, and processes. Test objectives are the goals or the purposes of testing, which can vary depending on the test level, the test type, the test technique, the test environment, the test stakeholder, etc. Test objectives can be defined in terms of the test basis, the test coverage, the test quality, the test risk, the test cost, the test time, etc. Test objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, and they should be aligned with the project objectives and the quality characteristics. In uniform software development models, the test objectives may be the same for all test levels, as the testing process is repeated for each cycle or iteration, with similar focus, scope, and perspective of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be appropriate, realistic, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in a hierarchical and modular manner, with different phases, deliverables, and dependencies, as in sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, when the test objectives vary according to the test levels, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, or when the test objectives change according to the feedback, the learning, or the adaptation of the testing process, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, etc. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.1.1, Testing and the Software Development Lifecycle1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.1, Testing Principles1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.2, Testing Policies, Strategies, and Test Approaches1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.3.1, Testing in Software Development Lifecycles1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, Test Monitoring and Control1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.3, Test Analysis and Design1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.4, Test Implementation1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.5, Test Execution1
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.6, Test Closure1
• ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Work Product Review, Static Testing, Early Testing, Test-driven Development, Test Level, Entry Criterion, Exit Criterion, Test Objective, Test Basis, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

Cost can be regarded as an exit criterion for testing, because it is a factor that affects the profitability and feasibility of the software product. Testing is an investment that aims to improve the quality and reliability of the software product, but it also consumes resources, such as time, money, and human effort. Therefore, testing should be planned and executed in a way that balances the cost and benefit of testing activities. Having cost as an exit criterion helps to avoid spending too much money on testing, which may result in an unprofitable product or a loss of competitive advantage. Cost can also help to prioritize and focus the testing efforts on the most critical and valuable features and functions of the software product. However, cost should not be the only exit criterion for testing, as it may not reflect the true quality and risk level of the software product. Other exit criteria, such as defect rate, test coverage, user satisfaction, etc., should also be considered and defined in the test plan.

The other options are incorrect, because they either deny the importance of cost as an exit criterion, or they make false or unrealistic assumptions about the cost of testing. Option B is incorrect, because the financial value of product quality can be estimated, for example, by using cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, or cost of quality models. Option C is incorrect, because going by cost as an exit criterion does not necessarily constrain the testing project or help achieve the desired quality level. Cost is a relative and variable factor that depends on the scope, complexity, and context of the software product and the testing project. Option D is incorrect, because the cost of testing can be measured effectively, for example, by using metrics, such as test effort, test resources, test tools, test environment, etc.

Statement coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of executable statements in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is another structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of decision outcomes (such as branches or conditions) in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is a stronger metric than statement coverage, because it requires that every possible outcome of each decision is tested, while statement coverage only requires that every statement is executed at least once2. Therefore, if a test suite achieves 100% decision coverage, it also implies that it achieves 100% statement coverage, because every statement in every branch or condition must have been executed. However, the converse is not true: 100% statement coverage does not guarantee 100% decision coverage, because some branches or conditions may have multiple outcomes that are not tested by the test suite2. For example, consider the following pseudocode:

if (x > 0) then print(“Positive”) else print(“Non-positive”) end if

A test suite that executes this code with x = 1 and x = -1 will achieve 100% statement coverage, because both print statements are executed. However, it will not achieve 100% decision coverage, because the condition x > 0 has only been tested with two outcomes: true and false. The third possible outcome, x = 0, has not been tested by the test suite. Therefore, the test suite may miss a potential bug or error in the condition or the branch.

The other options, such as stale transition coverage, equivalence class coverage, and boundary value coverage, are not guaranteed to be 100% by achieving 100% decision coverage. Stale transition coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of transitions between states in a state machine that are executed by a test suite3. Equivalence class coverage is a functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of equivalence classes (or partitions) of input or output values that are tested by a test suite4. Boundary value coverage is another functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of boundary values (or extreme values) of input or output ranges that are tested by a test suite4. These metrics are independent of decision coverage, because they are based on different aspects of the system under test, such as its behavior, functionality, or specification. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply achieving 100% of any of these metrics, and vice versa. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Test Coverage in Software Testing - Guru99, Structural Coverage Metrics - MATLAB & Simulink - MathWorks India, Test Design Coverage in Software Testing - GeeksforGeeks.

This answer is correct because shift-left in testing is an approach that aims to perform testing activities as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, in order to find and fix defects faster and cheaper, and to improve the quality of the software product. Continuous integration is a practice that supports shift-left in testing, as it involves integrating and testing the software components frequently, usually several times a day, using automated tools and processes. Continuous integration can reduce the time between the introduction of a defect and its detection, thereby reducing the cost to fix it and the risk of accumulating defects that could affect the functionality or performance of the software product. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.3, Section 3.2.1.3

This answer is correct because it follows the logical dependencies and allows executing the test cases in priority order. TC4, TC3, and TC2 are executed first because they have the highest priority. TC6 is executed next because it has a logical dependency on TC2. TC1 is executed next because it has a logical dependency on TC5. Finally, TC5 is executed last because it has the lowest priority. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents

As a functional tester, you should open a defect report providing detailed information on which devices and by running which tests you observed the issue. A defect report is a document that records the occurrence, nature, and status of a defect detected during testing, and provides information for further investigation and resolution. A defect report should include relevant information such as the defect summary, the defect description, the defect severity, the defect priority, the defect status, the defect origin, the defect category, the defect reproduction steps, the defect screenshots, the defect attachments, etc. Opening a defect report is a good practice for any tester who finds a defect in the software system, regardless of the type or level of testing performed. The other options are not recommended, because:

• The issue is related to performance efficiency, not functionality, but that does not mean that as a functional tester, you should not open any defect report as all the functional tests passed. Performance efficiency is a quality characteristic that measures how well the software system performs its functions under stated conditions, such as the response time, the resource utilization, the throughput, etc. Performance efficiency is an important aspect of the user experience, especially for web applications that run on different devices and networks. Even if the functional tests passed, meaning that the software system met the functional requirements, the performance issue observed on some devices could still affect the user satisfaction, the usability, the reliability, and the security of the software system. Therefore, as a functional tester, you have the responsibility to report the performance issue as a defect, and provide as much information as possible to help the developers or the performance testers to investigate and resolve it.

The support offered by a performance testing tool is often leveraged by testers to run load tests, which are tests that simulate a large number of concurrent users or transactions on the system under test, in order to measure its performance, reliability, and scalability. Performance testing tools can help testers to generate realistic workloads, monitor system behavior, collect and analyze performance metrics, and identify performance bottlenecks. The other statements are false, because:

• A test data preparation tool is a tool that helps testers to create, manage, and manipulate test data, which are the inputs and outputs of test cases. Test data preparation tools are not directly related to running automated regression test suites, which are test suites that verify that the system still works as expected after changes or modifications. Regression test suites are usually executed by test execution tools, which are tools that can automatically run test cases and compare actual results with expected results.
• A bug prediction tool is a tool that uses machine learning or statistical techniques to predict the likelihood of defects in a software system, based on various factors such as code complexity, code churn, code coverage, code smells, etc. Bug prediction tools are not used by testers to track the bugs they found, which are the actual defects that have been detected and reported during testing. Bugs are usually tracked by defect management tools, which are tools that help testers to record, monitor, analyze, and resolve defects.
• A continuous integration tool is a tool that enables the integration of code changes from multiple developers into a shared repository, and the execution of automated builds and tests, in order to ensure the quality and consistency of the software system. Continuous integration tools are not used by testers to automatically generate test cases from a model, which are test cases that are derived from a representation of the system under test, such as a state diagram, a decision table, a use case, etc. Test cases can be automatically generated by test design tools, which are tools that support the implementation and maintenance of test cases, based on test design specifications or test models. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.4.1, Types of Test Tools
• ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Performance Testing Tool, Test Data Preparation Tool, Bug Prediction Tool, Continuous Integration Tool, Test Execution Tool, Defect Management Tool, Test Design Tool

Option D correctly explains what is represented by the lines A, B and the axes X, Y in a testing metrics chart. According to option D:

• X-axis represents Time
• Y-axis represents Count
• Line A represents Number of open bugs
• Line B represents Total number of executed tests

This information is essential in understanding and analyzing the testing metrics of a completed project.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 2.5.1, Page 35.

Covering all transitions at least once is the highest coverage criterion for state transition based test cases, because it ensures that every possible change of state is tested at least once. This means that all the events that trigger the transitions, as well as the actions and outputs that result from the transitions, are verified. Covering all transitions at least once also implies covering all states at least once, but not vice versa. Therefore, option D is not the highest coverage criterion. Option C is the lowest coverage criterion, because it only tests the initial and final states of the system or component, without checking the intermediate states or transitions. Option A is incorrect, because the coverage criteria for state transition based test cases can be determined and compared based on the number of transitions and states covered. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 4.2.3, page 49-50.

 A test oracle is a mechanism or principle that can be used to determine whether the observed behavior or output of a system under test is correct or not1. A test oracle can be based on various sources of expected results, such as specifications, user expectations, previous versions, comparable systems, etc2. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.2.1, Page 91; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, Page 332.