CTAL-TM Exam Dumps : Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Management (CTAL-TM) v3.0

In Agile, defects discovered within the same sprint may be fixed without formal reports, but:

“Defect reports are typically required for defects that cannot be fixed immediately, require additional discussion, or involve external parties.”

—ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018, Section 3.2.4

Thus,Option Ais the accurate and practical reflection of Agile defect handling.

Cost of Quality Analysis:

The given table lists costs for defect prevention, appraisal, internal failure, and external failure.

Defect prevention cost is $50,000, while costs for appraisal, internal failures, and external failures are $250,000, $200,000, and $200,000, respectively.

The combined cost of internal and external failures is significantly high compared to defect prevention costs.

Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP):

DDP measures the effectiveness of defect prevention activities and early detection mechanisms.

In this case, 1,000 defects were caught before release (appraisal) and 100 defects escaped to production.

DDP = (Defects found before release / Total defects) = 1000 / (1000 + 100) = 90.91%.

While this DDP is relatively high, the costs of appraisal and failures indicate that prevention strategies need more investment.

Key Cost Drivers:

High internal and external failure costs indicate inefficiencies in earlier stages of quality assurance.

Shifting investments from appraisal and failure costs towards defect prevention would reduce the overall cost of quality.

Evaluating Options:

Option A ("More testing needed because DDP < 90%") is invalid since DDP is above 90%.

Option C ("The cost of testing is justified") does not address the imbalance between high failure costs and low prevention spending.

Option D ("More effort on appraisal") contradicts the cost-benefit focus of investing in prevention.

Option B is correct because enhancing defect prevention strategies will reduce downstream costs.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

This conclusion aligns with the ISTQB Advanced Test Management syllabus section on "Cost of Quality" and strategies to optimize testing investments. Specifically, prevention is emphasized as more cost-effective than appraisal and failure management​​​.

Context Analysis:

Monitoring code coverage is inherently tied to knowledge of the internal structure of the software, a characteristic of white-box testing.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Black-box:

Incorrect. Black-box testing focuses on functionality without knowledge of internal structures.

B. White-box:

Correct. White-box testing uses internal code knowledge to determine areas that need more coverage.

C. Functional:

Incorrect. Functional testing assesses functionality without inspecting internal code.

D. Non-functional:

Incorrect. Non-functional testing focuses on performance, usability, etc., not code coverage.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB associates code coverage monitoring with white-box testing techniques (TM-1.2.6).