CTAL-TTA_001 · Question #25
Part 1 "Test Techniques various" The result of a product risk analysis performed on components I, II and III of the airplane control system shows the following risk matrix: The project wants to…
The correct answer is A. I: Condition determination coverage, II: Decision Coverage, III: Statement coverage. Option A correctly maps coverage rigor to risk level: Component I (highest risk) gets Condition Determination Coverage (MC/DC - the most rigorous white-box technique, required in safety-critical standards like DO-178C), Component II (medium risk) gets Decision Coverage (every…
Question
Part 1 "Test Techniques various" The result of a product risk analysis performed on components I, II and III of the airplane control system shows the following risk matrix:
The project wants to mitigate the risks by defining different types of coverage depending on the risk level of the components. Which of the following would be a meaningful solution for setting the coverage targets? 2 credits [K3]
Options
- AI: Condition determination coverage, II: Decision Coverage, III: Statement coverage
- BI: Condition determination coverage, II: Statement coverage, III: Decision coverage
- CI: Decision coverage, II: Condition determination coverage, III: Statement Coverage
- DI: Multiple condition coverage, II: Decision coverage, III: Condition determination coverage
How the community answered
(20 responses)- A80% (16)
- B5% (1)
- C10% (2)
- D5% (1)
Explanation
Option A correctly maps coverage rigor to risk level: Component I (highest risk) gets Condition Determination Coverage (MC/DC - the most rigorous white-box technique, required in safety-critical standards like DO-178C), Component II (medium risk) gets Decision Coverage (every branch executed at least once), and Component III (lowest risk) gets Statement Coverage (the weakest, just ensuring each line executes). The principle is straightforward: higher risk demands stronger coverage criteria that can catch more subtle logic faults.
Why the distractors fail:
- B is wrong because it swaps II and III - Statement Coverage on a medium-risk component and Decision Coverage on a low-risk one inverts the risk-to-rigor relationship.
- C is wrong because it assigns only Decision Coverage to the highest-risk component (I), which is far too weak for safety-critical code.
- D has the right idea placing Multiple Condition Coverage on I (it's even stronger than MC/DC), but then assigns Condition Determination Coverage to III (lowest risk) while giving the medium-risk II only Decision Coverage - the two lower components are reversed, so a less risky component gets stronger coverage than a riskier one.
Memory tip: Think of a staircase - risk and coverage strength must always descend together. If Component I is the top step, it gets the strongest technique; each lower-risk component steps down one level. Any answer where a lower-risk component has stronger coverage than a higher-risk one is automatically wrong.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.