Free Practice Questions for BCS CTFL4 Exam

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

Using equivalence partitioning, the investment ranges are divided into four partitions:

R500 to R10,000 (10%)

R10,001 to R50,000 (11%)

R50,001 to R100,000 (12%)

R100,001 to R500,000 (13%)

Thus, the minimum number of test cases required to cover all valid equivalence partitions for calculating the interest is 4​​.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Product risksare risks thatimpact the quality or functionality of the software, whereasproject risksaffect theprocess, resources, or timeline.

(A) is correctbecause incorrect calculations impact software correctness.

(B), (C), and (D) are project risksas they relate toteam coordination, staffing, and schedulingrather than software defects.

Identifyingproduct risksearlyimproves defect detection and ensures better coverage for high-risk areas.

Traceability is the ability to trace the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Traceability can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test coverage, the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. However, not all the statements given are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products. The statement that is not true is option C, which says that test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly. This statement is false, because 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. Test objectives should not be the same for all test levels, as different test levels have different focuses, scopes, and perspectives of testing, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. The other statements are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products, such as:

Traceability can be useful for assessing the impact of a change to a test basis item on the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to identify which tests are affected by a change in the test basis, such as a new requirement, a modified design, a revised risk, etc., and to determine the necessary actions to update, re-execute, or re-evaluate the tests. Traceability can also help to estimate the effort, the cost, and the time needed to implement the change and to verify its impact on the software system.

Traceability can be useful for determining how many test basis items are covered by the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to measure the test coverage, which is the degree to which the test basis is exercised by the test cases. Traceability can help to identify which test basis items are covered, partially covered, or not covered by the tests, and to evaluate the adequacy, the completeness, and the effectiveness of the testing process. Traceability can also help to identify the gaps, the overlaps, or the redundancies in the test coverage, and to prioritize, optimize, or improve the test cases.

Traceability can be useful to support the needs required by the auditing of testing: This statement is true, because traceability can help to provide evidence, documentation, and justification for the testing activities, results, and outcomes. Traceability can help to demonstrate that the testing process follows the standards, the regulations, the policies, and the best practices that are applicable to the software system, the project, or the organization. Traceability can also help to verify that the testing process meets the expectations, the needs, and the satisfaction of the users and the stakeholders. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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 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® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Traceability, Test Basis, Test Artifact, Test Objective, Test Level, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:BDD emphasizes collaboration between developers, testers, and business stakeholders to define system behavior in a readable format (A). It typically uses theGiven-When-Thensyntax. Unlike unit testing (B), BDD is at a higher level of abstraction. It does not focus solely on non-functional testing (C) and encourages early testing rather than post-development validation (D).

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

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

 The thought process of the software company is incorrect, because it assumes that each artifact can be reviewed using only one review method, and that the review method depends solely on the criticality of the artifact. This is a simplistic and rigid approach that does not consider the benefits and limitations of different review methods, the context and purpose of the review, and the feedback and improvement opportunities that can be gained from multiple reviews. According to the CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, the selection of review methods should be based on several factors, such as the type and level of detail of the artifact, the availability and competence of the reviewers, the time and budget constraints, the expected defects and risks, and the desired outcomes and quality criteria. Moreover, the same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods at different stages of the development lifecycle, to ensure that the artifact meets the changing requirements, standards, and expectations of the stakeholders. For example, a requirement specification can be reviewed using an informal review method, such as a walkthrough, to get an initial feedback from the users and developers, and then using a formal review method, such as an inspection, to verify the completeness, correctness, and consistency of the specification. Therefore, the software company should adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to selecting and applying review methods for different artifacts, rather than following a fixed and arbitrary rule. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.2.1, page 31-32; Section 3.2.2, page 33-34; Section 3.2.3, page 35-36.

A pilot project is a small-scale experiment or trial that is conducted to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and suitability of a test automation tool before implementing it on a larger scale1.

The objectives of a pilot project may vary depending on the context and scope of the test automation initiative, but some common ones are2:

To get familiar with the functionality and options of the tool

To check how the tool fits to the existing test processes and environment

To assess the benefits and challenges of using the tool

To decide upon standards and guidelines for tool implementation and usage

To estimate the costs and resources required for tool deployment and maintenance

Therefore, option C is not a valid objective of a pilot project, as it is not necessary to train all testers on using the tool at this stage. Training all testers on using the tool would be more appropriate after the tool has been selected and approved for full-scale implementation, and after the standards and guidelines have been established. Training all testers on using the tool during the pilot project would be inefficient, costly, and premature, as the tool may not be suitable or effective for the intended purpose, or may be replaced by another tool later.

References:

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 82

2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 83

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85

The correct outcome of a two-value boundary value analysis applied to the password length is the set of test cases represented by option D. Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that focuses on the values at the boundaries of an equivalence partition, such as the minimum and maximum values, or the values just above and below the boundaries. A two-value boundary value analysis uses two values for each boundary, one representing the valid value and one representing the invalid value. For example, if the valid range of values is from 4 to 7, then the two values for the lower boundary are 3 and 4, and the two values for the upper boundary are 7 and 8. The test cases in option D use these values for the password length, while also satisfying the other requirements of the password, such as containing at least one numeric character, one capital letter, and one lowercase letter. The test cases in option D are:

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

8sBdby: an 8-character password that is invalid The test cases in the other options are incorrect, because they either use values that are not at the boundaries of the password length, or they do not meet the other requirements of the password. For example, the test cases in option A are:

1xA: a 3-character password that is invalid, but it does not contain a capital letter

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

7iDD0a1x: an 8-character password that is invalid References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.1, Black-box Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Boundary Value Analysis, Equivalence Partition2