CTFL_Syll2018 iSQI ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (Syllabus 2018) Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

A software company decided to buy a commercial application for its accounting operations. As part of the evaluation process, the company decided to assemble a team to test a number of candidate applications. The most suitable team for this goal would be a team with a mix of software testers and experts from the accounting department. This team would have the following advantages:

Software testers have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They can also use tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.

Experts from the accounting department have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They can also provide feedback and suggestions for improvement based on their needs and expectations as end users or customers.

The other teams mentioned in the question are not as suitable for this goal as they are for other purposes or scenarios. For example:

A team from an outsourcing company which specializes in testing accounting software: This team might have the skills and experience to test accounting software, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the specific requirements and criteria of the company that wants to buy the application. They might also lack the communication and collaboration with the stakeholders of the company who are involved in the evaluation process.

A team of users from the accounting department that will need to use the application on a daily basis: This team might have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application, but they might not have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They might also lack the tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.

A team from the company’s testing team, due to their experience in testing software: This team might have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They might also lack the feedback and suggestions for improvement based on the needs and expectations of the end users or customers.

Memory leaks are errors that occur when a program does not release memory that it has allocated, causing the system to run out of memory and slow down or crash. Memory leaks cannot be detected by structure-based testing techniques, which are based on the code structure and logic. Structure-based testing techniques can only find errors that are related to the control flow, data flow, or logic of the program. For example, they can find errors such as features that are only partially implemented, data structures that are used before initialization, or division by zero. To detect memory leaks, you need dynamic analysis tools that monitor the memory usage of the program during execution. You can find more information about structure-based testing techniques and dynamic analysis tools in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.31.

The term ‘Pesticide paradox’ refers to the phenomenon where the effectiveness of test cases that are repeated and focused on the same scenarios decreases over time because they tend to find the same defects or no defects at all. This is because the system under test becomes more resistant or immune to the existing test cases, just like pests become more resistant or immune to pesticides over time. To overcome the pesticide paradox, test cases should be regularly reviewed and updated to cover new or changed requirements, scenarios, risks, or defects. Test cases should also be designed to cover different aspects and perspectives of the system under test, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, etc. You can find more information about the pesticide paradox in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.11.

One of the basic principles of testing is that for a software system, it is not possible under normal conditions to test all input and output combinations because they are too many and too complex to cover within a reasonable time and budget. Therefore, testers have to select a subset of inputs and outputs that are representative and relevant for testing based on criteria such as requirements, risks, priorities, etc. This principle implies that testing cannot prove that a software system is defect-free or has a certain level of quality because there might be some untested inputs or outputs that could reveal defects or failures. Testing can only provide information about the quality and risk level of a software system based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. You can find more information about the basic principles of testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 11.

 System integration testing and acceptance testing are two different levels of testing that have different objectives and stakeholders. System integration testing is the process of testing the interactions and interfaces between different components or systems that form a larger system. System integration testing verifies that the system meets its functional and non-functional requirements and works as expected in its intended environment. System integration testing is usually done by testers or developers who have access to the system architecture and design specifications. Acceptance testing is the process of testing the system by the end users or customers to determine if it satisfies their needs and expectations and is ready for deployment or delivery. Acceptance testing verifies that the system complies with the user requirements and business processes and provides value to the stakeholders. Acceptance testing is usually done by users or customers who have access to the user requirements and business scenarios. You can find more information about system integration testing and acceptance testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 2, Sections 2.2 and 2.31.

A configuration management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and control the versions and changes of software artifacts, such as code, documents, test cases, etc. A configuration management tool can help prevent the loss of Sam’s updates by:

Providing a centralized repository where Sam can store and retrieve his test cases and other artifacts

Keeping track of the history and status of each artifact and allowing Sam to compare and revert to previous versions if needed

Supporting collaboration and communication among team members by allowing them to share and access the latest versions of the artifacts

The other tools mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario because they do not provide the same functionality or benefits as a configuration management tool. For example:

A. Incident management tool: This tool type allows users to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

C. Test execution tool: This tool type allows users to execute test cases automatically or semi-automatically and compare the actual results with the expected results. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

D. Backup tool: This tool type allows users to create copies of data or files and store them in a different location or device for recovery purposes. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

You can find more information about configuration management tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.4.

Functional testing is an example of black-box dynamic testing. Functional testing is the process of testing the functionality or behavior of a software system based on its requirements or specifications. Functional testing does not require any knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system under test; it only focuses on what the system does rather than how it does it. Functional testing is also an example of dynamic testing because it involves executing the software system with selected inputs and observing its outputs and effects on the environment. Dynamic testing is different from static testing, which involves examining the software system without executing it, such as code inspection, static analysis, etc. You can find more information about functional testing and dynamic testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 21.

The requirement given in

the image specifies

the charge for

a money transfer based on

the amount

of money transferred.

The amount can be anywhere from 1 to 5000 euros, with different charges applied for different ranges of amounts.

To test this requirement, we can use equivalence partitioning, which is a specification-based test technique that involves dividing the input or output values into groups or partitions 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 amount:

EP1: Amount < 1 (invalid)

EP2: 1 <= Amount <= 1999 (valid, charge = 10 euros)

EP3: 2000 <= Amount <= 5000 (valid, charge = 15 euros)

EP4: Amount > 5000 (invalid)

The set of amounts that covers all equivalence partitions is C. 0-100-2000-6000. This set of amounts includes one value from each equivalence partition and ensures that all possible scenarios are tested. For example:

TC1: Amount = 0 -> Invalid input

TC2: Amount = 100 -> Valid input, charge = 10 euros

TC3: Amount = 2000 -> Valid input, charge = 15 euros

TC4: Amount = 6000 -> Invalid input

The other sets of amounts do not cover all equivalence partitions because they either include values that belong to the same partition or exclude values that belong to different partitions. For example:

A. 0-1999-2000-5000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP2 (1999 and 2000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP3.

B. 1-2000-5001-10000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP4 (5001 and 10000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP2.

D. 99-1-2000-4999.99 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes a value that is not an integer (4999.99), which violates the assumption that only integer values can occur.

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

Static analysis tools are tools that examine the code or design of a software system without executing it. Static analysis tools can be used to find defects, measure complexity, check compliance, or improve quality. Some examples of defect types that can be found by static analysis tools are:

Variables that are never used: This defect type occurs when a variable is declared but not referenced or assigned in the code, which indicates a waste of memory or a logic error.

Coding standard violations: This defect type occurs when the code does not follow the predefined rules or conventions for formatting, naming, commenting, etc., which affects the readability and maintainability of the code.

Uncalled functions and procedures: This defect type occurs when a function or procedure is defined but not called or invoked in the code, which indicates a waste of resources or a missing functionality.

Memory leaks are defect types that are least likely to be found by static analysis tools because they are related to the dynamic behavior and performance of the software system. Memory leaks occur when a program does not release memory that it has allocated, causing the system to run out of memory and slow down or crash. Memory leaks can only be detected by dynamic analysis tools that monitor the memory usage of the program during execution. You can find more information about static analysis tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

The fundamental test process activity where the sufficiency of testing and resulting information are assessed is Evaluating exit criteria and reporting. This activity involves checking whether the test objectives have been met and whether there are any unresolved issues or risks that could affect the release or deployment decision. This activity also involves preparing and communicating a test summary report that summarizes the test activities and results and provides recommendations and feedback for improvement. You can find more information about Evaluating exit criteria and reporting in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.5.

Use case testing is a specification-based test technique that is based on the use cases or scenarios that describe how users interact with the system under test. Use case testing aims to find defects in the process flow or functionality of the system under test by verifying that it behaves as expected according to the use cases or scenarios. Use case testing does not require any knowledge of the data flow or structure of the system under test; it only focuses on what the system does rather than how it does it. Use case testing can be done by professional testers or real users, depending on the level and purpose of testing. Use case testing can also be designed by customers or end users, developers, testers, analysts, or anyone who has access to the use case specifications or user requirements. You can find more information about use case testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed after a software product has been delivered and deployed to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after changes have been made to it or to its environment. Changes can include corrective changes (fixing defects), adaptive changes (adapting to new platforms or environments), perfective changes (improving performance or usability), or preventive changes (avoiding potential problems). One of the appropriate reasons for maintenance testing is to verify that the software product works as expected after upgrading the operating system, which is an example of an adaptive change. Other reasons for maintenance testing can include verifying that the software product works as expected after fixing defects, adding new features, improving performance, or preventing future issues. You can find more information about maintenance testing in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 12.

Statement testing is part of structure-based testing, which is a type of testing that verifies the internal structure or implementation of a software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc. Statement testing is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every statement in the code at least once to ensure that there are no syntax errors, logical errors, or hidden defects in the code. Statement testing requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not related to statement testing because they do not verify the internal structure or implementation of a software system. For example:

A. Experience-based testing: This type of testing relies on the skills, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems or situations.

B. Decision testing: This type of testing verifies every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point to ensure that there are no logical errors or hidden defects in the code.

C. Specification-based testing: This type of testing verifies the external behavior or functionality of a software system based on its requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information.

You can find more information about statement testing and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

An incident report is a document that records any event occurring during testing that requires investigation1. An incident report should contain sufficient information to enable reproduction of the incident and resolution of the defect1. According to IEEE 829 Standard for Software Test Documentation, an incident report should contain the following information:

Identifier: A unique identifier for the incident report

Summary: A brief summary of the incident

Incident description: A description of the incident, including:

Date: The date when the incident was observed

Author: The name of the person who reported the incident

Source: The software or system lifecycle process in which the incident was observed

Version: The identification of configuration items of the software or system

Test case: The identification of the test case that caused the incident

Execution phase: The phase of test execution when the incident was observed

Environment: The hardware and software environment in which the incident was observed

Description: A description of the anomaly to enable reproduction of the incident

Expected result: The expected result of the test case

Actual result: The actual result of the test case

Reproducibility: An indication of whether the incident can be reproduced or not

Impact analysis: An analysis of the impact of the incident on other aspects of the software or system

Incident resolution: A description of how the incident was resolved, including:

Resolution date: The date when the incident was resolved

Resolver: The name of the person who resolved the incident

Resolution summary: A brief summary of how the incident was resolved

Status: The current status of the incident (e.g., open, closed, deferred)

Classification information: A classification of the cause and effect of the incident for metrics and reporting purposes

Therefore, among the options given in this question, only D provides the best detail on an incident report. It contains a clear title, a reproducibility indicator, a description that includes both expected and actual results, a reference to the specification document, and a screen shot of the failure. The other options are either missing some important information or providing inaccurate or irrelevant information

Statement coverage and decision coverage are both less than 100%. Statement coverage is a criterion that requires every executable statement in the source code to be executed at least once by a test suite1. Decision coverage is a criterion that requires every decision (or branch) in the source code to take both true and false outcomes at least once by a test suite1. The flow graph below shows the logic of a program for which 100% statement coverage and 100% decision coverage is required on exit from component testing. The flow graph has 9 nodes (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I) and 10 edges (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The edges represent executable statements and the nodes represent decisions or branches.

!flow graph

The following test cases have been run:

Test Case 1 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I

Test Case 2 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H

Test Case 3 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F

Test case 4 covering path A-B-C-D-E

To calculate the statement coverage and decision coverage achieved by these test cases, we can use the following formulas:

Statement coverage = (Number of statements executed / Total number of statements) x 100%

Decision coverage = (Number of decisions exercised / Total number of decisions) x 100%

In this case, the number of statements executed by the test cases is 8 (edges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). The total number of statements in the flow graph is 10 (edges 1 to 10). Therefore, the statement coverage achieved by the test cases is:

Statement coverage = (8 / 10) x 100% = 80%

The number of decisions exercised by the test cases is also 8 (nodes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H). The total number of decisions in the flow graph is also 10 (nodes A to J). Therefore, the decision coverage achieved by the test cases is:

Decision coverage = (8 / 10) x 100% = 80%

Therefore, statement coverage and decision coverage are both less than 100%. To achieve 100% statement coverage and decision coverage, two more test cases are needed to cover edges 8 and 10 and nodes I and J.

 The other details that should be included in the incident report when it is first submitted are B. Status of the incident, degree of impact, Test Case Number. These details are important to provide information about the current state of the incident, the severity of its effect on the system or user, and the test case that detected the incident. Other details, such as suggested solution, priority, history, related defects, expected fix time, line of code, etc., can be added later during the incident management process. A detailed explanation of incident report can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 99-1001.

Testing support tools are software tools that assist testers in performing testing activities, such as test management, test design, test execution, test evaluation, and defect management1. According to the ISTQB syllabus, some typical targets of testing support tools are to automate activities that require significant resources when done manually, automate activities that cannot be executed manually, and automate repetitive tasks1. Automating repetitive inspections is not a typical target of testing support tools, as inspections are static testing techniques that involve human review and analysis of software artifacts1.

Decision coverage is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point. Decision coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The pseudo code given in the question has one decision point at line 4, where the value of Gender is compared to ‘female’. This decision point has two possible outcomes or branches:

True branch: If Gender = ‘female’, then print “Ms” at line 5.

False branch: If Gender != ‘female’, then print “Mr” at line 7.

To achieve 100 per cent decision coverage, we need to test both outcomes or branches of the decision point at least once. Therefore, we need two test cases that cover both scenarios:

TC1: Gender = ‘female’ -> Print “Dear Ms”

TC2: Gender = ‘male’ -> Print “Dear Mr”

The other options are not correct because they do not provide enough or too many test cases to achieve 100 per cent decision coverage. For example:

A. 1: This option is not enough because it only provides one test case that covers one outcome or branch of the decision point, but not the other.

C. 3: This option is too many because it provides three test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but one of them is redundant or unnecessary.

D. 4: This option is too many because it provides four test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but two of them are redundant or unnecessary.

You can find more information about decision coverage and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.