A static analysis tool can be used by developers, testers and quality assurance personnel in looking for defects prior to dynamic testing, because it can analyse the code or design of the software under test without executing it and identify errors such as syntax errors, missing declarations, undefined variables, unused variables, or unreachable code . The other options are not tools that can be used by developers, testers and quality assurance personnel in looking for defects prior to dynamic testing. Option B is not a tool that can be used for this purpose, because a modeling tool is used to create graphical or textual representations of the software under test, such as state diagrams, data flow diagrams, or use cases . Option C is not a tool that can be used for this purpose, because a test data preparation tool is used to generate or manipulate data that are needed for executing the test cases or procedures . Option D is not a tool that can be used for this purpose, because a configuration management tool is used to manage and control the versions and changes of the software under test and the testware .

Explanation of Correct Answer: Priority indicates the level of business importance assigned to the

The requirement given in the image specifies an additional fee of $3 that is charged during the weekend, with some exceptions and discounts based on the age of the visitors. To test this requirement, we can use boundary value analysis, which is a specification-based test technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. An equivalence partition is a set of values that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input age:

EP1: Age < 0 (invalid)

EP2: Age = 0 (valid, no charge)

EP3: 0 < Age < 7 (valid, no charge)

EP4: Age = 7 (valid, 20% discount)

EP5: 7 < Age < 13 (valid, 20% discount)

EP6: Age = 13 (valid, 20% discount)

EP7: 13 < Age < 65 (valid, full charge)

EP8: Age = 65 (valid, 50% discount)

EP9: Age > 65 (valid, 50% discount)

The boundary values for each equivalence partition are the values at or near the edges of the partition. For example, the boundary values for EP3 are 1 and 6. The boundary values for EP4 are 6 and 7. The boundary values for EP5 are 7 and 12. And so on.

To test this requirement using boundary value analysis, we need to select one value from each boundary and test it with different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example, we can select the following values:

BV1: Age = -1 (from EP1)

BV2: Age = 0 (from EP2 and EP3)

BV3: Age = 6 (from EP3 and EP4)

BV4: Age = 7 (from EP4 and EP5)

BV5: Age = 12 (from EP5 and EP6)

BV6: Age = 13 (from EP6 and EP7)

BV7: Age = 64 (from EP7 and EP8)

BV8: Age = 65 (from EP8 and EP9)

BV9: Age = 66 (from EP9)

We can then create test cases using these values and different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example:

TC1: Age = -1, Weekend = Yes -> Invalid input

TC2: Age = -1, Weekend = No -> Invalid input

TC3: Age = 0, Weekend = Yes -> No charge

TC4: Age = 0, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC5: Age = 6, Weekend = Yes -> No charge

TC6: Age = 6, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC7: Age = 7, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)

TC8: Age = 7, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC9: Age = 12, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)

TC10: Age = 12, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC11: Age = 13, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)

TC12: Age = 13, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC13: Age = 64, Weekend = Yes -> $3

TC14: Age = 64, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC15: Age = 65, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)

TC16: Age = 65, Weekend = No -> No charge

TC17: Age = 66, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)

TC18: Age =

66, Weekend = No -> No charge

Therefore, we need a minimum of18valid test cases to achieve100%boundary value coverage based on input age.

$3.01 is not a valid output boundary value because it is not a possible output value based on the requirement. The output values can only be $0, $1.50, $2.40, or $3 depending on the input age and weekend status.

You can find more information about boundary value analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

This scenario is using a walkthrough review type and a perspective-based review technique. A walkthrough is a type of review that is relatively informal and led by the author of the work product. A perspective-based review technique is a technique that involves reviewing the work product from different viewpoints or perspectives of various stakeholders. The scenario matches these descriptions, as it involves an informal approach, a meeting leader who is the author of the requirements document, and a goal of improving the software application's usability and accessibility by considering the various stakeholders' viewpoints. Option A is incorrect, as a pair review is a type of review that involves only two people, usually the author and another team member. Option C is incorrect, as a checklist-based review technique is a technique that involves reviewing the work product against a predefined list of items or criteria. Option D is incorrect, as it combines the incorrect descriptions of options A and C.

They should be involved in reviewing requirements or user stories as soon as drafts are available is the option that represents good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used, because it allows testers to provide early feedback, identify potential defects, and clarify test objectives and scope1.Early involvement of testers in reviewing requirements or user stories can improve the quality and testability of the software and reduce the cost and effort of testing1. The other options do not represent good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used.Option A is not a good option, because they should start test analysis as early as possible, not when the corresponding development level is complete, to avoid delays and inefficiencies in testing1.Option C is not a good option, because they should ensure that different test objectives apply to each test level, not the same test objectives, to avoid redundancy and gaps in testing1.Option D is not a good option, because they should minimize the ratio of development levels to test levels to reduce project costs, but rather balance the development and test levels according to the project needs and risks1.