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. Reference: 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 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. Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents

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.

Explanation
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 isassociated 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 ascomponent 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

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. Reference: 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

The question is about selecting the correct test values for x based on equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a software test design technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this case, the given equivalence classes are:
(x \leq -100)
(-100 < x < 100)
(100 \leq x < 1000)
(x \geq 1000)
Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:
For (x \leq -100), it gives -1000.
For (-100 < x < 100), it gives -100 and 100.
For (100 \leq x < 1000), it gives 500.
For (x \geq 1000), it gives 1500.
So, option D covers all four given equivalence classes with appropriate values.
Reference:
1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38
2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39
3: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

Effort estimate does not depend on the budget of the project, but rather on the scope, complexity, and quality of the software product and the testing activities1. Budget is a constraint that may affect the feasibility and accuracy of the effort estimate, but it is not a factor that determines the effort estimate. Effort estimate is the amount of work required to complete the testing activities, measured in terms of person-hours, person-days, or person-months2.
The other options are correct because:
A) Once the test effort is estimated, resources can be identified and a schedule can be drawn up, as they are interrelated aspects of the test planning process3. Resources are the people, tools, equipment, and facilities needed to perform the testing activities4. Schedule is the time frame and sequence of the testing activities, aligned with the project milestones and deadlines5.
B) Effort estimate can be inaccurate because the quality of the product under tests is not known, as it affects the number and severity of the defects that may be found and the rework that may be needed to fix them6. Quality is the degree to which the software product satisfies the specified requirements and meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients7.
D) Experience based estimation is one of the estimation techniques, which relies on the judgment and expertise of the testers and other project stakeholders to estimate the test effort based on similar projects or tasks done in the past. Experience based estimation can be useful when there is a lack of historical data, formal methods, or detailed information about the software product and the testing activities.
Reference =
1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 154
2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 155
3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 156
4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 157
5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 158
6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 159
7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16
[8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 160
[9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 161

This answer is correct because static testing and dynamic testing are both types of testing that can be used to highlight issues associated with non-functional characteristics, such as usability, performance, security, reliability, etc. Static testing is a type of testing that involves the analysis of software work products, such as requirements, design, code, or test cases, without executing them. Dynamic testing is a type of testing that involves the execution of software work products, such as code or test cases, using inputs and verifying outputs. Both static testing and dynamic testing can be applied to different test levels and test types, and can use different test techniques and tools, to evaluate the non-functional characteristics of the software product. Reference: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.1.1, Section 2.2.1.2

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. Reference: 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

This answer is correct because equivalence partitioning is a test design technique that divides the input domain of a system or component into partitions of equivalent data, such that each partition is expected to produce the same output or behavior. Equivalence partitioning aims to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. In this case, the input domain of the TAS can be divided into four partitions based on the bonus rules: less than 50k€, between 50k€ and 80k€, between 80k€ and 120k€, and more than 120k€. The test cases in the answer belong to the same partition, which is between 80k€ and 120k€, and they are expected to produce the same output, which is a bonus of 15%. Reference: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.1

Explanation
This answer is correct because a walkthrough is a type of review where the author of the work product leads the review process and explains the work product to the reviewers. The reviewers are not required to prepare for the review in advance, and the main objective of the walkthrough is to establish a common understanding of the work product and to identify any major defects or issues. A walkthrough is usually informal and does not follow a defined process or roles. In this case, the review for a high-level architectural document written by a software architect matches the characteristics of a walkthrough. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.2

Non-functional testing includes testing of both technical and non-technical quality characteristics. Non-functional testing is the process of testing the quality attributes of a system, such as performance, usability, security, reliability, etc. Non-functional testing can be applied at any test level and can use both black-box and white-box test techniques. Non-functional testing can cover both technical aspects, such as response time, throughput, resource consumption, etc., and non-technical aspects, such as user satisfaction, accessibility, compliance, etc. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

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.
Reference:
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
3: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84
4: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85

Explanation
Static analysis is the process of examining the work products of a software development or testing activity without executing them. Static analysis can be applied to various types of work products, such as requirements, design, code, test cases, etc. However, test plans are not suitable for static analysis, because they are high-level documents that describe the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, and risks of a testing project. Test plans are not executable or formalized in a way that static analysis tools can analyze them.
Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.2.1, page 20; ISTQB Glossary v4.02, page 45.

The question is about marking the correct sentences among the given statements related to defects, failures, and mistakes. According to the ISTQB glossary, the definitions of these terms are1:
Defect: A flaw in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function, e.g. an incorrect statement or data definition. A defect, if encountered during execution, may cause a failure of the component or system.
Failure: An event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits.
Mistake: A human action that produces an incorrect result.
Therefore, out of the five given statements, only two are correct, namely:
A human mistake may produce a defect: This is true, as a mistake is a source or cause of a defect, e.g. a programmer may make a mistake in writing a code statement, which results in a defect in the software component.
When a defect exists in a system it may result in a failure: This is true, as a defect is a potential or actual cause of a failure, e.g. a defect in the software component may cause the system to fail to perform a required function when the defect is encountered during execution.
The other three statements are incorrect, namely:
Defects are a result of environmental conditions and are also referred to as “Failures”: This is false, as defects are not a result of environmental conditions, but of mistakes or other factors, and defects are not the same as failures, but rather the causes of failures.
A system will totally fail to operate correctly when a failure exists in it: This is false, as a system may not necessarily fail completely or stop operating when a failure occurs, but may continue to operate with reduced functionality or performance, or with incorrect results.
Defects occur only as a result of technology changes: This is false, as defects can occur due to various reasons, not only technology changes, such as human mistakes, design flaws, requirement changes, hardware failures, etc.
Reference:
1: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms 4.0, 2023, available at ISTQB) and ASTQB).

Explanation
This answer is correct because equivalence partitioning is a test design technique that divides the input domain of a system or component into partitions of equivalent data, such that each partition is expected to produce the same output or behavior. Equivalence partitioning aims to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. In this case, the input domain of the TAS can be divided into four partitions based on the bonus rules: less than 50k€, between 50k€ and 80k€, between 80k€ and 120k€, and more than 120k€. The test cases in the answer belong to the same partition, which is between 80k€ and 120k€, and they are expected to produce the same output, which is a bonus of 15%. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.1

Explanation
Confirmation testing is performed after a defect is fixed, and if such testing is successful then the regression tests that are relevant for such fix can be executed. Confirmation testing, also known as re-testing, is the process of verifying that a defect has been resolved by running the test case that originally detected the defect.
Confirmation testing is usually done before regression testing, which is the process of verifying that no new defects have been introduced in the software as a result of changes or fixes. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.
References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.4.1, page 28; ISTQB Glossary v4.02, page 15.

Explanation
This answer is correct because configuration management is a process of establishing and maintaining consistency of a product’s performance, functional, and physical attributes with its requirements, design, and operational information throughout its life. Configuration management helps ensure that all relevant project documentation and software items are uniquely identified in all their versions and therefore can be unambiguously referenced in test documentation. This supports testing by providing traceability, consistency, and control over the test artifacts and the software under test. References: : ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, : ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.2

Exercising at least one of the decision outcomes for all decisions within the code, ensures achieving full branch coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all branches in the control flow of the code are executed at least once by the test cases. A branch is a basic block of code that has a single entry point and a single exit point, and a decision is a point in the code where the control flow can take more than one direction, such as an if-then-else statement, a switch-case statement, a loop statement, etc. The decision outcomes are the possible paths that can be taken from a decision, such as the then branch or the else branch, the case branch or the default branch, the loop body or the loop exit, etc. The other statements are false, because:
The minimum number of test cases needed to achieve full branch coverage, is usually higher than that needed to achieve full statement coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all executable statements in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. This is because branch coverage is a stronger criterion than statement coverage, as it implies statement coverage, but not vice versa. For example, a single test case can achieve full statement coverage for an if-then-else statement, but two test cases are needed to achieve full branch coverage, as both the then branch and the else branch need to be exercised.
If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all unconditional branches within the code have not necessarily been exercised, as unconditional branches are branches that do not depend on any decision, and are always executed, such as a goto statement, a break statement, a return statement, etc. Unconditional branches are not part of the branch coverage criterion, as they do not represent different paths in the control flow of the code. However, they are part of the statement coverage criterion, as they are executable statements in the code.
If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all combinations of conditions in a decision table have not necessarily been exercised, as a decision table is a test design technique that represents the logical relationships between multiple conditions and their corresponding actions, in a tabular format. A decision table can have more combinations of conditions than the number of decision outcomes in the code, as each condition can have two or more possible values, such as true or false, yes or no, etc. For example, a decision table with four conditions can have 16 combinations of conditions, but the corresponding code may have only two decision outcomes, such as pass or fail. To exercise all combinations of conditions in a decision table, a stronger test coverage criterion is needed, such as condition combination coverage, which requires that all possible combinations of condition outcomes in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.3.1, Test Coverage Criteria Based on the Structure of the Software ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Branch Coverage, Statement Coverage, Branch, Decision, Decision Outcome, Unconditional Branch, Decision Table, Condition Combination Coverage

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. Reference: 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.

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). Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.4.3, Page 17.

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.

Explanation
This answer is correct because Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) is a test-first approach, where tests that express a shared understanding from stakeholders of how the application is expected to work, are first written in business-readable language (following the Given/When/Then format), and then made executable to drive development. BDD is a collaborative approach that involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in defining the expected behavior of the application using scenarios that describe the preconditions, actions, and outcomes of the application. BDD scenarios are written using a domain-specific language (DSL) that can be translated into executable test cases using tools such as Cucumber or SpecFlow. BDD aims to improve communication, collaboration, and feedback among the team members, and to deliver software that meets the customer’s needsand expectations. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.4