Programmable logic hardware fact-check The Altera UPIX educational development board is stated to contain an EP10K60 (from the FLEX 10K FPGA family) in a 280-pin package. Assess the statement as a technical claim.

Introduction / Context:
Educational development boards often advertise their key programmable logic device (PLD) and package to indicate I/O count and capabilities. This item asks you to judge a specific hardware statement about an Altera UPIX board allegedly using an EP10K60 device packaged with 280 pins. Understanding typical device families and package options helps verify such claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claimed device: Altera EP10K60, a member of the FLEX 10K FPGA family.
• Claimed package: 280-pin package on a UPIX educational development board.
• Goal: Determine whether the statement should be accepted as technically accurate.

Concept / Approach:
Cross-checking device families and common package counts is a standard validation step. Large FLEX 10K devices (like EP10K50/60) typically appear in high-pin-count packages (PQFP, BGA, etc.) sized to support hundreds of I/Os and power/ground pins. A 280-pin figure is atypical for this density; boards historically used 208-pin, 240-pin PQFP, or 484-pin BGA for larger parts. When a claim conflicts with the usual package landscape, treat it skeptically unless backed by an authoritative source (datasheet, board manual).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify the device family (FLEX 10K) and its usual package options for high-density parts like EP10K60.Compare the stated “280-pin” package with common published options for similar-density FLEX devices (frequently 208/240 PQFP or larger BGA counts).Conclude the claim is not consistent with typical packaging information for that device class; mark it as incorrect.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consulting device datasheets and specific board user guides is the best way to confirm the exact package. In the absence of such confirmation, the prudent engineering stance is to reject the claim as stated.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” would require datasheet or board-manual confirmation for that exact pin count. “Ambiguous” would apply if multiple packages were clearly documented with identical pin counts; here the claim is unlikely. “Not applicable” is irrelevant because packages are directly applicable to PLD devices.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming all variants of a device come in the same package; confusing family names (FLEX, MAX) and densities; overlooking that educational boards may change device options across revisions.

Final Answer:
Incorrect