ASQ Updated CSQE Exam Questions and Answers by kornelia

The chart compares projected defect discovery patterns with actual defect discovery patterns for unit testing and integration testing. The actual integration test defects, shown by the plus markers, closely follow the projected integration test defect curve. This indicates that integration testing is finding approximately the number of defects expected over time. The unit test actuals do not provide as strong a match to the projected unit test curve, so concluding that unit testing is isolating exactly as predicted is less supported. The chart also does not prove poor unit test planning or unusually high integration test effectiveness; it simply compares actual results to predictions. Therefore, the supported conclusion is that integration testing is isolating as many defects as predicted.

================

A good software quality objective should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. “Reduce cost of rework by 15% by the end of the fourth quarter” meets these characteristics because it identifies a clear improvement target, provides a measurable percentage, and includes a deadline. Rework cost is also directly related to software quality because it reflects defects, process inefficiency, and correction effort. Lines of code per staff member measures productivity, not necessarily quality, and may encourage poor behavior. Increasing profit margins is too broad and not directly a software quality objective. Increasing inspections to meet standards is vague and does not state a measurable product quality result. Therefore, option B is the best quality objective.

================

A software quality audit plan should outline the scope, objectives, and resources needed for the audit. This includes identifying the personnel, time, and tools required to conduct the audit effectively. While opening meeting minutes, corrective action reports, and completed checklists are essential parts of the audit process, they are not typically included in the initial audit plan. References: IEEE Std 1028-2008 - IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits.

Reengineering a software module typically involves assessing various factors such as code complexity, maintainability, performance requirements, and the age of the platform.  The goal is to identify modules that are costly to maintain, difficult to understand, or are becoming obsolete due to platform changes 1 2 .

Cyclomatic Complexity: This is a quantitative measure of the number of linearly independent paths through a program’s source code.  A higher cyclomatic complexity indicates a more complex and potentially less maintainable module 2 .

Looking at the table provided:

Module A has a version number of 12 and a cyclomatic complexity of 9.

Module B has a version number of 3 and a cyclomatic complexity of 21.

Module C has a version number of 9 and a cyclomatic complexity of 4.

Module D has a version number of 11 and a cyclomatic complexity of 20.

Given these details, Module B stands out as the most likely candidate for reengineering for the following reasons:

It has the  highest cyclomatic complexity (21) , which suggests that the code is highly complex and may be difficult to maintain or extend 2 .

The version number being 3 indicates that it has undergone fewer iterations of updates or fixes compared to the other modules, which might imply that it has legacy code that could benefit from reengineering.