Salesforce JavaScript-Developer-I Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The code:

let timerId = setInterval(timedFunction, 1000);

setInterval schedules timedFunction to run every 1000 ms.

It returns an interval ID (here stored in timerId), which is used to cancel the interval later.

To cancel:

Use clearInterval(timerId);

This is the standard browser (and Node.js) API:

let id = setInterval(fn, delay);

clearInterval(id); stops future executions of that interval.

Check other options:

B. removeInterval(timerId);

There is no removeInterval function in the standard JavaScript timer API.

C. removeInterval(timedFunction);

Again, no such function; and timers are cancelled by ID, not by the callback function reference.

D. clearInterval(timedFunction);

clearInterval expects the ID returned by setInterval, not the callback function.

Passing the function does not cancel the timer.

Therefore, the correct statement is:

Answer: A

Study Guide / Concept References (no links):

Timer APIs: setInterval and clearInterval

Relationship between timer ID and cancellation

Difference between interval ID and callback function

Basic async timing patterns in JavaScript

The verified answer is A .

This constructor function runs when new Person() is called:

function Person() {

this.firstName = " John " ;

}

So this line:

const myFather = new Person();

creates an object like this:

{

firstName: " John "

}

Then the prototype is assigned a method named job:

Person.prototype = {

job: x = > " Developer "

};

Because myFather is created from Person, it can access properties and methods from Person.prototype.

So:

myFather.firstName

returns:

" John "

And:

myFather.job()

returns:

" Developer "

Therefore:

const result = myFather.firstName + " " + myFather.job();

becomes:

const result = " John " + " " + " Developer " ;

Final value:

" John Developer "

Option B is incorrect because job() returns " Developer " , not undefined.

Option C is incorrect because job exists on Person.prototype, so it is callable.

Option D is incorrect because firstName is assigned inside the constructor.

Therefore, the verified answer is A .

In JavaScript, NaN has some special properties:

NaN is not equal to anything, including itself.

Equality operators (==, ===) do not work for detecting NaN.

Check each option:

A. value === Number.NaN

Number.NaN is just NaN.

But NaN === NaN is always false.

So this expression is never true and cannot be used to detect NaN.

B. value == NaN

Same issue. NaN == NaN is always false.

So this also never detects NaN.

C. Object.is(value, NaN)

Object.is is a more precise equality comparison method.

It treats NaN as equal to NaN: Object.is(NaN, NaN) is true.

So Object.is(value, NaN) is a valid way to detect NaN.

D. value !== value

Because NaN is the only JavaScript value that is not equal to itself , value !== value is true only when value is NaN.

This is a classic trick for NaN detection.

E. Number.isNaN(value)

Number.isNaN is the recommended modern way to check if a value is NaN without coercion .

It returns true only if value is actually the number NaN.

Therefore, the three correct ways are:

Object.is(value, NaN)

value !== value

Number.isNaN(value)