CTFL-AcT Exam Dumps : ISTQB Certified Tester - Acceptance Testing (CT-AcT)

Equivalence Partitioning (EP) is a black-box test design technique that divides input data into valid and invalid partitions, where each partition is expected to exhibit similar behavior. In the context of acceptance testing, EP is especially effective because it helps validate whether a system behaves correctly for representative input ranges defined in the acceptance criteria.

Acceptance testing aims to confirm that the system meets business requirements and handles inputs as expected. EP allows the tester to cover a large input space using fewer test cases while maintaining a high level of effectiveness. It supports efficiency, broad coverage, and relevance to user expectations.

Other options are less suitable:

A. Static code analysis is a white-box technique, more relevant to unit or integration testing.

B. Input validation is an objective or activity, not a test design technique.

D. Defect-based testing is more diagnostic, used after failures or during exploratory testing — less structured for planned acceptance testing.

Exact Reference – ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus (Section 2.4):

“Black-box techniques such as equivalence partitioning and boundary value analysis are suitable for deriving acceptance tests from user stories or business rules.”

The goal here is to achieve full decision coverage (also known as branch coverage), which means each decision point in the process must evaluate to both TRUE and FALSE at least once during testing.

From the BPMN ATM withdrawal model, we identify two key decisions:

Is the balance ≥ $100?

If yes, is receipt = YES?

To achieve full decision coverage:

One test must evaluate decision 1 as TRUE and another as FALSE.

If decision 1 is TRUE, then decision 2 must be exercised both ways (receipt = YES and NO), but for minimal decision coverage, one path through decision 2 is enough.

Analyzing test cases:

Test 1 (balance = $100, receipt = YES): decision 1 = TRUE, decision 2 = TRUE

Test 2 (balance = $99): decision 1 = FALSE

These two tests ensure:

Decision 1 evaluated TRUE (Test 1) and FALSE (Test 2)

Decision 2 evaluated at least once (receipt = YES in Test 1)

Thus, Test 1 and Test 2 form the minimal set for full decision coverage.

Other options:

C and D are redundant for the minimal set.

A includes an extra test not needed for minimal decision coverage.

Answer: B. Test 1, Test 2

Performance testing assesses how a system behaves under specific conditions, typically focusing on responsiveness, stability, and resource usage. The type of performance test depends on the workload model:

Load testing evaluates performance under expected peak usage.

Stress testing pushes the system beyond its capacity to assess limits.

Endurance/stability testing checks for performance degradation over extended periods.

Option A correctly describes that performance test types are determined by the workload simulation strategy.

Other options:

B confuses performance with security testing — malicious attack robustness is a security focus, not performance.

C is partly correct but less comprehensive than A. While testing should simulate realistic conditions, categorization into stress/load/endurance is better aligned with workload modeling.

D is misleading — performance tests validate systems against performance requirements; they are not primarily used to define them.

Answer: A. Depending on the model used to simulate the workload, performance tests are called load, stress or endurance / stability tests.