Previous Ursa Major Solar sales representatives worked on approximately 180 Accounts with billing addresses in California. These sales representatives need to retain viewing and editing access to…

Question

Options

• AConfigure a new account sharing rule for the sales Rep profile with criteria based on billing state
• BConfigure a new account folder for these users with criteria based on billing state equals
• CConfigure a new profile for these users with criteria based on billing state equals California.
• DConfigure a new account sharing rule for these users with criteria based on billing state equals

• A
  14% (5)
• B
  8% (3)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  76% (28)

Explanation

Option D is correct because criteria-based sharing rules are the proper Salesforce mechanism for granting record-level access to specific users based on field values - in this case, Billing State = California. The administrator can create a sharing rule that targets these former reps (via a Public Group) and automatically shares all 180 matching accounts with View/Edit access in just a few clicks.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is close but wrong because sharing rules cannot target a Profile directly - they must target a Public Group, Role, or Territory. The vague "billing state" (without "equals California") also makes it incomplete.
• B is nonsensical in Salesforce - Folders exist for Reports, Dashboards, and Documents, not Accounts. There is no such thing as an "Account folder."
• C is wrong because Profiles control object-level permissions (what actions users can perform), not record-level access (which specific records they can see). A profile cannot filter by field criteria like billing state.

Memory tip: Use the phrase "Sharing Rules = Record Access, Profiles = Object Access." Whenever a question asks about granting access to a specific set of records based on field criteria, think sharing rules - not profiles, not folders.

No community discussion yet for this question.