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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ISTQB-CTFL Exam - Topic 6 Question 41 Discussion

For the same financial institution in Question 12, with the same requirements and expectations, what would be the most likely investment values used in testing if two-point boundary value analysis is used to design test cases specific to the 13% interest rate equivalence partition?
A) R100 000, R100 001, R500 000, R500 001.
B) R99 999, R100 000, R499 999, R500 000.
C) R100 000. R500 000.
D) R99 000, R500 001.

ISTQB-CTFL Exam - Topic 6 Question 41 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's ISTQB-CTFL exam
Question #: 41
Topic #: 6
[All ISTQB-CTFL Questions]

For the same financial institution in Question 12, with the same requirements and expectations, what would be the most likely investment values used in testing if two-point boundary value analysis is used to design test cases specific to the 13% interest rate equivalence partition?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

For boundary value analysis, the test cases should include the boundary values just inside and just outside the equivalence partition for the 13% interest rate range:

R100,000 (just inside the previous range)

R100,001 (start of the 13% range)

R500,000 (end of the 13% range)

R500,001 (just outside the range)

These values ensure that both the edges of the partition are tested.


by Melita at Mar 08, 2025, 11:31 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ISTQB-CTFL Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lynelle
7 months ago
Not sure about D, feels like it misses some key points.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shalon
8 months ago
C is too limited, we need more values for testing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brigette
8 months ago
Wait, are we really considering R99 999? Seems odd!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolland
8 months ago
I disagree, I feel like A is the right choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lino
8 months ago
Definitely think it's B. Those boundaries make sense!
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurel
9 months ago
I think option B makes sense because it includes values just below and above the critical points. It aligns with what we learned about equivalence partitioning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carin
9 months ago
I thought we only needed the exact boundary values, so maybe option C is the answer? But I'm not confident about that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitley
9 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like we practiced a similar question where we had to identify values just around the thresholds. Could it be option A?
upvoted 0 times
...
Johnetta
9 months ago
I remember we discussed boundary value analysis in class, and I think it's about testing just below and above the limits. So, maybe option B could be right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Laticia
9 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about this one. I'll need to carefully read the question and the options to make sure I understand what they're asking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
9 months ago
I'm confident I can solve this. The answer is B - R99,999, R100,000, R499,999, R500,000.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitney
9 months ago
Okay, let's think this through step-by-step. The key is to identify the boundary values for the 13% interest rate equivalence partition.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the two-point boundary value analysis part. I'll need to review that concept again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Almeta
9 months ago
This question seems pretty straightforward. I think I can handle this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melodie
1 year ago
Haha, this question is a real brain-teaser. It's like they're trying to trip us up with all these financial shenanigans. Time to put on my thinking cap!
upvoted 0 times
Lauryn
1 year ago
D) R99 000, R500 001.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernardo
1 year ago
C) R100 000. R500 000.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paz
1 year ago
B) R99 999, R100 000, R499 999, R500 000.
upvoted 0 times
...
Art
1 year ago
A) R100 000, R100 001, R500 000, R500 001.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mila
1 year ago
D all the way, baby! Gotta keep 'em on their toes with some unexpected values. R99,000 and R500,001 are where it's at.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salome
1 year ago
I'd go with B. Hitting the sweet spot right on the boundary seems like the safest bet for this kind of financial institution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leatha
1 year ago
C'mon, it's got to be A. Pushing the limits is where the real action is at! R100,001? Now that's what I call a test case.
upvoted 0 times
Talia
1 year ago
User 3: Yeah, A seems like the best choice for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valentine
1 year ago
User 2: Agreed, R100,001 is definitely a test case worth considering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kent
1 year ago
User 1: I think A is the way to go. Pushing the limits is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sunny
1 year ago
I agree with Gary, A seems to be the most comprehensive option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gary
1 year ago
But A covers the range of values specified in the question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Myong
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gary
1 year ago
I think the answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Orville
1 year ago
Hmm, I think the most likely values would be R99,999, R100,000, R499,999, and R500,000. Gotta hit those boundaries, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Pearly
1 year ago
Let's go with option B) for the test cases then.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ling
1 year ago
Yes, option B) seems like the most likely choice for two-point boundary value analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melita
1 year ago
I think option B) R99 999, R100 000, R499 999, R500 000 covers those values.
upvoted 0 times
...
Frederick
1 year ago
I agree, hitting those boundaries is crucial for testing.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel