Which of the following is a methodical approach to error guessing?

Question

Options

• ACreate a list of possible failures and defects and design tests to address each one
• BAsk the developers where the likely errors will be and discuss how to test for each one
• CReview the code to determine areas of high complexity and target those areas with tests
• DDetermine all the decisions in the code and design tests to address each one

• A
  93% (39)
• B
  5% (2)
• C
  2% (1)

Explanation

Option A is correct because error guessing is defined as a systematic experience-based technique where the tester compiles a list of plausible errors, defects, or failure modes - drawing on intuition and past experience - and then deliberately designs test cases to expose each one.

• B is wrong because consulting developers describes a collaboration or knowledge-transfer activity, not error guessing; error guessing is driven by the tester's own experience and judgment, not developer input.
• C is wrong because targeting high-complexity code areas describes a structural/coverage-based strategy (sometimes called complexity testing), which relies on code analysis rather than experienced intuition about likely failures.
• D is wrong because designing tests for every decision in the code describes decision coverage (a white-box technique), a very different, formal structural approach.

Memory tip: Think of error guessing as building a "most-wanted list" - you brainstorm the defects most likely to be hiding, write each one down, then hunt for them one by one. The word list in option A is the giveaway.

No community discussion yet for this question.