Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

GAQM CBAF-001 Exam - Topic 2 Question 41 Discussion

Actual exam question for GAQM's CBAF-001 exam
Question #: 41
Topic #: 2
[All CBAF-001 Questions]

A business analyst has identified that one of the use cases on a use case diagram contains a large amount of optional processing. This optional processing is so large that he has decided to remove it to a separate use case which can be called by the original use case if required. How should the original use case be linked to the new use case?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Clemencia
5 months ago
Really? I thought optional processing was always included, this is confusing!
upvoted 0 times
...
King
6 months ago
Solid line with no arrowhead? That's not right, C is wrong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nell
6 months ago
Wait, isn't it B? I thought uses was the right term.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesusita
6 months ago
I think it's actually A, includes are for optional stuff.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derrick
6 months ago
Definitely option D, that's how extends work!
upvoted 0 times
...
Izetta
7 months ago
I thought "uses" was a term we learned, but it seems like it’s not the right stereotype for this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bettye
7 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to differentiate between "include" and "extend." I feel like this one is definitely "include."
upvoted 0 times
...
Beula
7 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about "extend" being used for optional behavior. Maybe that's the right choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Casey
7 months ago
I think the original use case should be linked with an "include" relationship since it's calling the optional processing when needed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamaria
7 months ago
Okay, let me see if I can work this out. If the optional processing is being moved to a separate use case, then the original use case should be linked to the new one using an "include" relationship, right? That makes the most sense to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vernice
7 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know there are different types of relationships between use cases, but I can't quite recall the specifics. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristofer
7 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about use case relationships. I think the key is to remember the difference between "include" and "extend" relationships.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
7 months ago
I've got a good feeling about this one. The question is asking how the original use case should be linked to the new one, and based on the details provided, I think the answer is option A - a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word "include".
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
7 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know the Fishbone Diagram is used for root cause analysis, but I'm not totally clear on how the different categories, like "Equipment," are supposed to be used. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loreen
7 months ago
I'm pretty confident the answer is `ifconfig --a --d bridges`. That should list all the network bridges on the system.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florencia
8 months ago
Ah, I remember learning about WSUS in our security module. That's the right tool for centralized Microsoft update distribution. I'm confident that's the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelyn
1 year ago
Wait, is this a trick question? I thought the extend stereotype was only for extending the functionality of a use case, not for removing optional processing. I'm going to have to think about this one.
upvoted 0 times
Rosalind
11 months ago
D) By a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word extend.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marsha
11 months ago
B) By a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word uses.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luisa
11 months ago
A) By a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word include.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Hester
1 year ago
Haha, this is a tricky one! I bet the exam writers are trying to trip us up. I'm going with option D, just to be safe.
upvoted 0 times
Alaine
11 months ago
I agree with you, option D seems like the safest bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Terrilyn
11 months ago
I'm going with option C, it seems like the most logical choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zona
1 year ago
I think option A is the correct one.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Katie
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Doesn't the include stereotype make more sense since the original use case is including the optional processing in the new use case?
upvoted 0 times
Luis
11 months ago
D) That makes sense, the include stereotype is the correct way to link the original use case to the new use case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trina
11 months ago
C) I agree, the include stereotype shows that the original use case is including the optional processing in the new use case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiera
12 months ago
Hmm, I think you're right. The include stereotype does make more sense in this case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louvenia
12 months ago
A) By a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word include.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlette
1 year ago
B) I think you're right, the include stereotype does make more sense in this case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miesha
1 year ago
A) By a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word include.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carlota
1 year ago
I think option D is the correct answer. The extend stereotype is used to link a base use case to an optional extension use case.
upvoted 0 times
Freeman
12 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think option B might be the correct way to link them.
upvoted 0 times
...
Twana
1 year ago
I believe option A is the right choice, with the include stereotype.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryll
1 year ago
I think it should be linked with a solid line, so I choose option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delisa
1 year ago
I agree, option D is the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Shawn
1 year ago
But wouldn't using 'include' make more sense since the optional processing is being separated out?
upvoted 0 times
...
Delila
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe it should be linked by a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word extend.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawn
1 year ago
I think the original use case should be linked to the new use case by a broken, arrowed line stereotyped with the word include.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel