Question 1

When data are entered into a computer system for the first time, they must pass through which essential quality control activity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Data quality begins at the point of capture. When information is entered for the first time, validation checks confirm that values are complete, consistent, within allowed ranges, and correctly formatted. This prevents bad data from contaminating downstream processes and reports. Given Data / Assumptions: First time entry includes initial loads and new record creation. Validation rules include type checks, ranges, referential integrity, and business constraints. Front end and back end validations work together. Concept / Approach: Validation differs from testing. Testing verifies software behavior. Validation in this context verifies the correctness of data values at entry time. Typical mechanisms include required field checks, format masks, lookup lists, and server side rule enforcement to guard against bypasses. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the activity that ensures correctness of input values. 2) Recognize that 'system testing' and related terms refer to software QA, not individual data entries. 3) Select 'Validation' as the correct control at data entry. Verification / Alternative check: Data governance frameworks emphasize validation gates at capture, integration, and storage to maintain data integrity across the life cycle. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: System testing validates the system, not each entered value. Option B/C: 'Sequential' and 'string' testing are not standard names for entry validation activities. Option E: Not applicable because validation is the accepted control. Common Pitfalls: Relying only on client side checks. Always include server side validation to prevent circumvention through direct API calls. Final Answer: Validation

Question 2

In systems analysis and design, what should a system design aid primarily help with? Choose the most appropriate primary purpose.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: System design aids (such as modeling notations and CASE tools) exist to clarify how a system should work before coding starts. Their primary role is to illuminate the problem space by analyzing both data (what is stored and exchanged) and activities/processes (what the system does). Given Data / Assumptions: We are focusing on the primary purpose of a design aid, not every possible secondary benefit. Documentation and programming support can be side benefits but are not the central reason these aids exist. Automatic code generation is outside the minimal goal and is not universally available or reliable. Concept / Approach: The cornerstone of good system design is correct understanding of processes and data structures. Techniques like data flow diagrams, entity-relationship models, and use-case models provide a dual view: activities transform inputs to outputs, while data models define persistent structures. A tool or notation that helps analyze both dimensions best serves designers and stakeholders. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the core needs of design: understand processes + understand data.2) Recognize that documentation is an artifact of analysis, not its core goal.3) Recognize that programming support may help later but depends on language/tech stack; it is not universal.4) Therefore, the primary purpose is comprehensive analysis of data and activities. Verification / Alternative check: When system models are accurate, teams can choose technology stacks and coding strategies confidently. Conversely, perfect documentation or code stubs do not fix incorrect analysis. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Documentation-only is too narrow. Programming-only support misses early-stage needs. Auto code generation is not a core requirement and may not fit every architecture. “None” ignores the established purpose of design aids. Common Pitfalls: Overemphasizing tool output (pretty diagrams, generated code) while underinvesting in the quality of the underlying analysis. Final Answer: Help analyze both data and activities (processes) comprehensively.

Question 3

In systems documentation, what does HIPO (Hierarchy plus Input-Process-Output) provide? Select the most complete characterization.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: HIPO stands for Hierarchy plus Input-Process-Output. It is a classic documentation technique used to communicate the structure of a system (via a hierarchy chart) and the flow of information and transformations (via IPO charts). This question asks for the most complete description. Given Data / Assumptions: “Forms-driven” refers to standardized chart formats used to make documentation consistent. Hierarchy chart shows the system broken down into modules. IPO charts describe inputs, the processing performed, and outputs for each module. Concept / Approach: HIPO uses a top-down methodology. The hierarchy chart is the structural map; IPO charts are the detailed “contracts” for each box in the hierarchy, linking data items to processes and outputs. Together, they improve clarity and maintainability. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Confirm the technique is standardized and forms-driven (consistent templates).2) Confirm that a hierarchy chart is included (module structure).3) Confirm the IPO detail charts exist (data and process view per module).4) Recognize all three statements jointly define HIPO; choose “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Historical systems analysis texts consistently describe HIPO with a two-part deliverable: the hierarchy view and the IPO charts, aligned to a top-down approach. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single statement alone is incomplete; HIPO encompasses all three features simultaneously. Common Pitfalls: Using only hierarchy charts without IPO details, which reduces traceability from data to processing outcomes. Final Answer: All of the above accurately describe HIPO.

Question 4

Requirements elicitation: which technique most directly helps an analyst learn a manager’s specific information needs? Pick the best primary method.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Analysts must understand managerial information needs to design effective systems and reports. Among elicitation techniques, the one that most directly uncovers nuanced requirements is the in-depth interview, which allows probe questions, clarifications, and real-time prioritization. Given Data / Assumptions: Managerial needs are context-rich and often tacit, requiring dialogue. Follow-up and “why” questions are critical to uncover true goals and constraints. Other methods can complement interviews but rarely replace them. Concept / Approach: Interviews enable discovery of KPIs, decision thresholds, exception handling, cadence of reporting, and integration points. They also help assess pain points and the “jobs to be done” in managerial workflows. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify techniques: survey, interview, experiment, observation.2) Evaluate directness and depth: interviews allow 2-way exploration and immediate clarification.3) Select in-depth interview as the best primary method to learn needs. Verification / Alternative check: Successful projects routinely pair interviews with artifact analysis (existing reports, dashboards) and lightweight observation, but interviews remain the centerpiece for eliciting explicit and implicit requirements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mail surveys and randomized questionnaires lack depth and follow-up. Controlled experiments are rarely practical for managerial information needs. Observation is valuable but may miss decision rationales that only emerge in conversation. Common Pitfalls: Failing to prepare an interview guide; not validating with examples and existing reports; ignoring stakeholder conflicts. Final Answer: In-depth interview (structured or semi-structured).

Question 5

When planning to convert to a computer-based system, which considerations should management evaluate? Select the most complete set.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: System conversion is a high-stakes transition. Management must balance functional fit, performance, and ongoing support to minimize risk and disruption. This question asks for the most complete set of considerations at planning time. Given Data / Assumptions: The organization is moving from a non-computerized or legacy system to a new computer-based solution. Compatibility, performance, and support are critical to success. Total cost of ownership includes license, maintenance, and operational capacity. Concept / Approach: Evaluating available software ensures functional fit and integration possibilities. Vendor maintenance affects uptime, patches, and security. CPU size and speed must meet throughput/latency targets under expected concurrency. Ignoring any of these increases the risk of failure during and after conversion. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Ensure software capability and roadmap match requirements.2) Confirm support SLAs, response times, and escalation paths.3) Size compute resources for peak demand and growth.4) Conclude that all listed considerations are valid and necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Pilots and performance benchmarks can validate sizing and vendor claims before full rollout, reducing conversion risks. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking only one element underestimates the multi-dimensional nature of successful conversion. Common Pitfalls: Under-sizing infrastructure; overlooking vendor lock-in; neglecting maintenance costs and patch cadence. Final Answer: All of the above are legitimate considerations.

Question 6

Process description techniques: which item below is NOT primarily a tool for describing processes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Analysts document both what systems do (processes) and what they store (data). This question distinguishes process-oriented techniques from data-oriented artifacts. Given Data / Assumptions: Structured English, decision tables, and pseudocode express logic and rules. Data dictionaries catalog data elements, structures, and relationships. We seek the option that is not primarily for process description. Concept / Approach: Process tools articulate conditions, actions, loops, and decisions. Data dictionaries define attributes (name, type, length, allowed values), sources/targets, and relationships. Hence, a data dictionary complements process specifications but is not itself a process description tool. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Classify each option as process- vs data-focused.2) Structured English, decision tables, and pseudocode: process logic devices.3) Data dictionary: data catalog tool.4) Therefore, the correct answer is “Data dictionaries.” Verification / Alternative check: Industry practice separates logical process models (e.g., decision tables, flow descriptions) from data dictionaries and schemas. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Structured English, decision tables, and pseudocode all describe behavior and decision logic; they are fundamentally process-oriented. Common Pitfalls: Assuming data definitions alone capture business rules; many rules need explicit process representations. Final Answer: Data dictionaries (focus on data definitions, not process behavior).

Question 7

Structured systems analysis deliverables: which item below would NOT typically be a major deliverable of the analysis phase?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Structured systems analysis focuses on understanding the problem domain before solution design and implementation. Its deliverables emphasize logical models of processes and data, not fully realized solutions. Given Data / Assumptions: Analysis produces logical representations (DFDs, ERDs, data dictionaries, context diagrams). Prototyping can occur, but high-fidelity prototypes are usually design-phase artifacts. We are distinguishing typical analysis outputs from later-phase deliverables. Concept / Approach: Analysis asks “what” the system should do; design and build answer “how.” Detailed prototypes that mimic final behavior and UI are part of design/implementation validation, not core analysis. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) List standard analysis outputs: DFDs, ERDs, data dictionaries, context diagrams.2) Identify which item belongs to later phases: high-fidelity prototype model.3) Select the prototype as the atypical analysis deliverable. Verification / Alternative check: Many methodologies (e.g., SSADM) reserve substantial prototyping for design/build, while permitting low-fidelity sketches during analysis if needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: DFDs, ERDs, and data dictionaries are canonical analysis artifacts; context/logical models likewise belong to analysis. Common Pitfalls: Premature solutioning—jumping into implementation details before finalizing logical requirements. Final Answer: A high-fidelity prototype model (solution mock-up).

Question 8

What is a “turnaround document” in information systems operations? Select the most accurate description.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Operational documents often flow between the system and users. A classic example is a utility bill, where one part is mailed out (output) and a remittance stub is sent back by the customer (input). This bi-directional lifecycle defines a “turnaround document.” Given Data / Assumptions: Turnaround documents originate from the system as output. Users annotate or detach a portion and return it for further processing. They facilitate error reduction via pre-printed IDs and standardized formats. Concept / Approach: The distinguishing feature is the reuse of an output artifact as a future input. This preserves identifiers and speeds data capture (e.g., scanning via barcodes), minimizing keying errors and matching payments to accounts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the lifecycle: system prints/sends document.2) User returns part of the document (stub) to the system.3) System processes the returned item to update records. Verification / Alternative check: Bank deposit slips, pay-in vouchers, and meter-reading cards are similar cases. All originate from the system and return as inputs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Staff memos or policy notes are one-way communications and not designed to return as structured inputs. Common Pitfalls: Confusing turnaround documents with simple receipts; receipts are typically outputs retained by customers and do not loop back as inputs. Final Answer: A document produced as system output that later returns as input (e.g., bill stub).

Question 9

Algorithm workflow basics: most algorithms begin by doing which of the following? Select the best starting step.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Algorithms transform inputs into outputs through defined steps. Before processing or displaying anything, the algorithm must acquire its inputs (from the user, a file, or an external system). Hence, input acceptance is generally the first operational step. Given Data / Assumptions: We consider typical imperative workflow: input -> process -> output. Algorithms may validate inputs immediately after reading. Edge cases exist (e.g., constant-only algorithms), but the general rule emphasizes input acquisition first. Concept / Approach: Without input capture, subsequent computations lack operands. Deferring displays until results exist prevents confusion and improves UX. This sequencing also supports validation, defaulting, or error handling before processing. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Acquire inputs: read from keyboard, API, sensors, or files.2) Validate and sanitize: check ranges, formats, and completeness.3) Process according to algorithm steps to derive outputs.4) Display or persist outputs. Verification / Alternative check: Most flowcharts and pseudocode templates start with INPUT statements, followed by PROCESS and OUTPUT, aligning with standard instructional patterns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Displaying inputs/outputs before reading or computing is illogical. Entering outputs is nonsensical; outputs are produced, not entered. Processing before accepting inputs is generally impossible. Common Pitfalls: Skipping validation after input; this causes downstream errors and brittle logic. Final Answer: Entering (accepting) the input items into the computer.

Question 10

File access strategy: which process is generally best when you must access a large number of records from the same file?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workloads that touch many records in the same file—like monthly billing, payroll, or mass updates—benefit from throughput-oriented processing. Batch jobs are optimized for sequential, large-volume work with minimal user interaction. Given Data / Assumptions: The job requires accessing numerous records in one run. Interactivity is not essential; timeliness can be scheduled (e.g., nightly). System utilization and I/O efficiency matter more than immediate response. Concept / Approach: Batch processing amortizes setup costs across many records, leverages sequential I/O, and maximizes throughput. Real-time/online jobs suit low-latency, per-transaction needs; they are suboptimal for mass processing due to interaction overhead and locking contention. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Classify workload: many-record, uniform operations (e.g., compute statements).2) Choose batch for sequential scans and aggregation efficiency.3) Schedule during off-peak hours to reduce contention.4) Monitor I/O and memory to ensure sustained throughput. Verification / Alternative check: Performance benchmarks commonly show batch outperforming interactive modes for bulk work. ETL pipelines exemplify this pattern. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Real-time/online jobs prioritize latency and user interaction, not bulk throughput. Declaring all options equally optimal ignores workload characteristics. Common Pitfalls: Running massive updates through interactive screens, causing timeouts and user frustration. Final Answer: A batch job (process many records in scheduled runs).

Question 11

IS acquisition decision: which is an advantage of outright purchase (as opposed to leasing) when acquiring systems?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Organizations can acquire information systems through purchase (ownership) or leasing (rental). Each path has distinct financial and operational implications. This question asks specifically for an advantage of outright purchase, not leasing. Given Data / Assumptions: Purchase implies the organization owns the asset and controls modifications. Leasing implies recurring rental payments; certain risks and services may be borne by the lessor. We compare the options against these definitions. Concept / Approach: Ownership provides discretion over upgrades, integrations, and hardware/software modifications without seeking lessor permission (subject to warranties). Leasing typically includes bundled services (insurance/maintenance) and may shift some obsolescence risk to the lessor—but those are leasing, not purchase, advantages. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate option A: “No financing required; obsolescence risk to lessor” describes leasing, not purchase.2) Evaluate option B: Ownership allows greater freedom to modify—this aligns with purchase.3) Evaluate option C: Bundled rental charges again describe leasing benefits.4) Therefore, the purchase advantage is option B (flexibility to modify at will). Verification / Alternative check: Finance and IT procurement practices characterize leasing as preserving cash and sometimes including service bundles, while purchase grants control and may reduce long-term cost of ownership if the asset is used over many years. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A and C are classic leasing advantages. Option D incorrectly groups leasing advantages under purchase. Option E is false because purchase does offer control benefits. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cash-flow and risk profiles between leasing and purchasing; ignoring lifecycle costs (resale value, maintenance beyond warranty). Final Answer: High flexibility to modify the system at will (ownership control).

Question 12

In structured software development and testing, coding starts with unit creation and verification, and integration proceeds layer by layer; this means coding and testing are typically performed in a bottom-up manner (unit to module to subsystem to f…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Coding and testing activities in the software development life cycle are planned to control risk and localize faults. While design often follows a top-down refinement (from requirements to architecture to detailed design), the act of coding components and verifying them commonly proceeds from the smallest testable pieces upward—i.e., bottom-up. Understanding this distinction helps teams schedule unit tests, integration sequences, and environment readiness in a realistic order. Given Data / Assumptions: Coding produces individual units/classes/functions before full subsystems exist. Testing begins with unit tests, then moves to component and integration tests. Build pipelines typically assemble tested units into higher-level modules. Concept / Approach: Top-down is ideal for analysis and design (decompose big problems). Bottom-up is pragmatic for construction and verification: implement and test leaf modules first, then integrate and test progressively larger aggregates. This minimizes cascading failures and isolates defects early, when they are cheapest to fix. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the development phase: coding plus testing (verification/integration).Note the practical order: create and unit-test low-level components first.Integrate these components into larger modules and test interfaces.Continue upward until the complete system passes system and acceptance tests. Verification / Alternative check: In continuous integration pipelines, commits trigger unit tests first; only after passing do builds run higher-level integration suites. This mirrors bottom-up assembly and validation in practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ad hoc lacks structure and increases risk. Cross-sectional is not a standard testing progression term. Top-down applies more to design/specification breakdown than to the practical order of coding and verification. “None of the above” is incorrect because bottom-up matches industry practice for build-and-test. Common Pitfalls: Confusing design direction with implementation order; assuming top-down always applies. In reality, code is proven reliable from the leaves upward, enabling stable integrations and faster fault localization. Final Answer: bottom-up

Question 13

In problem solving with the IPO (Input–Processing–Output) perspective, programmers refer to the overall goal or intent for solving the problem as the “purpose.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Before designing inputs, transformations, and outputs, programmers must be clear about the objective the solution should achieve. In structured planning (IPO charts, problem statements), this high-level objective is often called the “purpose.” Clarity on purpose ensures that subsequent requirements and tests align with real stakeholder needs. Given Data / Assumptions: We are framing a computational problem using IPO thinking. We need terminology for the overarching goal. Inputs, processing, and outputs are subordinate to that goal. Concept / Approach: Purpose articulates “why” the program exists and “what” outcome it must enable users to achieve. Only after the purpose is defined do we specify inputs (data), processing (algorithms), and outputs (reports/results). This order avoids building features that do not serve the core intent. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the role of each IPO element.Differentiate the overarching goal from the mechanics of transformation.Map the goal to the correct term: “purpose.” Verification / Alternative check: Well-written problem statements begin with a purpose line (e.g., “The purpose of this program is to compute salary after deductions”). Inputs, processing, and outputs naturally derive from the stated purpose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Input is data provided to the program; output is the produced result; processing is the internal logic. None of these labels the goal itself. “None of the above” is incorrect because “Purpose” precisely names the goal. Common Pitfalls: Jumping into inputs/outputs without agreeing on purpose leads to scope creep and mismatched expectations. Always anchor design to the stated purpose first. Final Answer: Purpose

Question 14

In information systems, what is an “audit trail”? (Focus on data processing: tracing transactions step by step from source through processing to their effect on accounts.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An audit trail is central to accountability in computerized systems. It enables internal and external auditors to follow the lifecycle of a transaction—from initial capture to final posting—thereby verifying accuracy, detecting fraud, and supporting compliance. Understanding the exact definition distinguishes auditing mechanisms from generic data concepts. Given Data / Assumptions: The system records the sequence of processing steps. Auditors need to trace transactions affecting accounts or records. We are differentiating an audit trail from unrelated data terms. Concept / Approach: An audit trail provides chronological records linking source documents, transformation steps, exception logs, and final postings. It is usually immutable, time-stamped, and access-controlled, facilitating reconciliation and forensic analysis. This trail is not the same as data definitions or grouped data elements; it is specifically about traceability. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the option that emphasizes step-by-step traceability.Confirm it allows following all transactions that impact a given account or record.Select that option as the precise definition of audit trail. Verification / Alternative check: During an audit, sampling a transaction and being able to walk from ledger impact back to source invoice (and forward again) demonstrates a functioning audit trail. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B describes an attribute, not traceability. Option C describes a record or composite field (e.g., a tuple), again not traceability. Option D cannot be correct because B and C are not definitions of audit trail. Option E is wrong because a correct definition exists (option A). Common Pitfalls: Confusing change logs with fully linked audit trails; a proper trail ties identities, timestamps, actions, and before/after values to source and destination artifacts. Final Answer: a feature of data processing systems that allows study of data as processed step by step so an auditor can trace all transactions affecting an account

Question 15

When writing calculation instructions in an algorithm (e.g., in pseudocode for a program), they should clearly state both what is to be calculated and how the calculation will be performed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Algorithms serve as unambiguous blueprints for computation. For developers and reviewers to implement and test reliably, the algorithm must specify the target quantity (what) and the method (how) using precise operations, order of evaluation, and any constraints or edge-case rules. Omitting either dimension leads to misinterpretation. Given Data / Assumptions: The algorithm is meant to be implemented in code. Calculations may involve formulas, loops, and conditionals. Readers need clarity without guessing intent or method. Concept / Approach: Good pseudocode (structured English) states the objective and the computation steps. For example: “Compute net_pay = gross_pay - (tax + provident_fund).” This line conveys both what (net_pay) and how (explicit arithmetic). Including only one of these aspects would be insufficient. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the requirement of calculation clarity: target + method.Check options for one that includes both elements.Option C matches both what and how; select it. Verification / Alternative check: Attempting to code from an algorithm that states only the goal (what) forces the programmer to invent a method, risking inconsistency. Conversely, describing only steps (how) without a clear target can misalign outputs. Therefore, both are necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A and B omit essential information. Option D introduces “why,” which is useful contextually but is not required in the calculation instruction itself. Option E is invalid because a correct option exists (C). Common Pitfalls: Leaving operator precedence or units implicit; always specify order and unit conversions to prevent defects. Final Answer: Both what is to be calculated and how to calculate it

Question 16

In software engineering, checking the quality of a software product in both simulated (test/staging) and live (operational) environments is known as validation (ensuring the right product meets user needs).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Verification and validation are complementary quality activities. Verification asks “Did we build the product right?” (conformance to specification), while validation asks “Did we build the right product?” (fitness for intended use). Evaluating behavior in simulated and live contexts aligns with validation because it tests the solution under realistic user workflows and operating conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: There is a simulated environment (lab, test, staging) and a live environment (production or pilot). We are assessing whether the system satisfies user needs and real scenarios. The question focuses on quality checking across environments. Concept / Approach: Validation activities include usability testing, user acceptance testing, pilot rollouts, and production shadowing/parallel runs. By exercising the software where and how it will be used, validation provides evidence that workflows, data volumes, and constraints are handled correctly for users and stakeholders. Step-by-Step Solution: Map simulated/live testing to the V&V framework.Recognize that end-user context and real workloads are the focus.Identify the correct term: validation. Verification / Alternative check: Unit and functional tests (verification) can pass while users still reject the product because it fails real tasks. Testing in realistic contexts (validation) closes that gap, confirming the product is the right fit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Checking” is vague; “usability” is a sub-aspect, not the whole activity; “validity” is a general noun, not the established software QA term. “None of the above” is wrong because “validation” precisely fits. Common Pitfalls: Confusing verification with validation; restricting testing to lab conditions only and discovering issues post go-live. Always include representative user journeys. Final Answer: validation

Question 17

In human–computer interaction, a menu-driven system presents a list of options to the user and allows them to make selections to perform tasks or navigate.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Menu-driven interfaces are among the most common interaction styles in software and devices. They reduce the need to memorize commands by presenting available actions as choices. This improves learnability and lowers error rates, especially for occasional users. Given Data / Assumptions: Users interact via visible choices (menus, dropdowns, ribbons, contextual lists). Selections trigger commands, dialogs, or navigation paths. The system may be online or offline; the concept applies broadly. Concept / Approach: Menu-driven design focuses on recognition over recall: users recognize actions from a list instead of recalling syntax. It suits kiosks, ATMs, desktop apps, and mobile UIs alike. Accessibility and discoverability increase when choices are clearly labeled and organized. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the defining trait of menu-driven systems: visible choices.Confirm that the user makes selections to execute tasks.Choose the option that states this behavior explicitly. Verification / Alternative check: Examples include ATM interfaces, POS systems, and settings menus on phones; all present options for users to select and proceed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: It is not limited to professionals (A). It is not only for online systems (B). Proper menus reduce, not increase, operator workload (C). “None of the above” is incorrect because option D precisely describes menu-driven behavior. Common Pitfalls: Overloading menus with too many items; burying critical actions too deep; using inconsistent labels. Keep structure shallow, group logically, and name actions clearly. Final Answer: presents options and allows the user to make selections

Question 18

During a system study (requirements discovery), analysts determine managers’ information needs primarily by asking targeted questions using interviews and similar elicitation techniques.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Requirements discovery hinges on effective elicitation. For managers’ information needs—KPIs, decision cycles, exception handling—analysts rely on structured and semi-structured interviews with probing questions. This clarifies goals, constraints, and contexts that documents alone cannot reveal. Given Data / Assumptions: Stakeholders include managers with strategic and operational responsibilities. The analyst needs to understand decisions, timing, and data granularity. Interviews and workshops are available methods. Concept / Approach: Asking questions via interviews, workshops, and questionnaires elicits tacit knowledge—exceptions, pain points, and priorities. Demonstrations (sample reports, prototypes) can supplement, but the core discovery mechanism is targeted questioning that maps needs to measurable outputs. Step-by-Step Solution: Plan interview guides aligned to business goals and decisions.Conduct interviews to capture information needs (metrics, detail level, cadence).Validate findings with artifacts (sample reports) as secondary aids. Verification / Alternative check: Well-run analyses produce requirement statements and acceptance criteria that trace back to interview notes and workshop outcomes, confirming questioning as the primary method. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Tours of a computer center (A) do not surface managerial needs. Showing samples (C) is helpful but not primary for discovery. Teaching programming (D) is unrelated to eliciting requirements. “None of the above” is wrong because asking questions is correct. Common Pitfalls: Asking only leading questions; failing to probe exceptions; not involving all decision-makers. Use open-ended and scenario-based questions to uncover real needs. Final Answer: asking questions

Question 19

After planning an algorithm (e.g., writing pseudocode or a flow), the recommended way to verify correctness before coding is to desk-check the algorithm step by step using sample data.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Early error detection is far cheaper than post-implementation fixes. Before coding, designers validate logic by walking through the algorithm manually with representative inputs. This process—desk-checking—exposes logic gaps, boundary errors, and missing cases without the overhead of compiling and running code. Given Data / Assumptions: An algorithm has been planned (pseudocode/flowchart/structured English). Test inputs and expected behaviors can be enumerated. The goal is to validate logic, not implementation syntax. Concept / Approach: Desk-checking simulates execution by hand: track variable values, branch decisions, loops, and outputs across steps. It is especially effective for boundary conditions (min/max, empty lists, zero/negative values) and complex decision trees, preventing many coding-time defects. Step-by-Step Solution: Prepare a set of test cases including normal, edge, and error inputs.Trace each pseudocode step, recording intermediate values.Compare reached outputs with expected results; adjust the algorithm if mismatches appear. Verification / Alternative check: Teams often combine peer reviews with desk-checks; discrepancies found at this stage drastically reduce later debugging effort, confirming the method’s effectiveness. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Analyze the algorithm” is vague and overlaps but does not specify the concrete verification action. Coding first (B) risks embedding logic errors. Option D concerns program evaluation after coding, which is later than necessary. Option E is wrong because desk-checking is the established practice. Common Pitfalls: Skipping edge cases; not documenting traces; using only “happy path” inputs. Always include extremes and invalid cases in desk-checks. Final Answer: Desk-check the algorithm

Question 20

Identify the statement that is true in systems analysis and implementation practice (choose the single best true statement).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Systems analysis and implementation terminology can be confusing. Choosing the single true statement requires knowing precise definitions for parallel runs, documentation boundaries, and organizational information flows. This question tests that conceptual clarity. Given Data / Assumptions: Parallel run refers to operating the old and new systems simultaneously and comparing results. Systems analysis is a thinking and modeling activity that can be performed without computers. Information flows in organizations can be vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and networked. Documentation is layered: system documentation vs program/module documentation. Concept / Approach: System flowcharts depict system-level processes, data stores, and external entities; they belong to system documentation. Program documentation focuses on source code, algorithms, and program-level flow. Therefore, stating that a system flowchart is not part of a program documentation package is accurate. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate each option against definitions and practice.Option A misdefines parallel run; it is not about two terminals on one database.Option B is false—analysis relies on models/interviews and can be manual.Option C is false—information flows are multidirectional in modern organizations.Option D correctly distinguishes system vs program documentation. Verification / Alternative check: Implementation plans list “parallel run” as simultaneous operation/outputs comparison for risk mitigation. Documentation standards (e.g., system overview vs program specs) separate system flowcharts from program-level artifacts, confirming D as true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Confuses the definition of parallel run. B: Computers aid analysis but are not a prerequisite. C: Overly absolute; ignores cross-functional flows. E: Invalid because D is true. Common Pitfalls: Treating “system” and “program” documentation as interchangeable; misremembering parallel run as a hardware/terminal configuration concept rather than a rollout strategy. Final Answer: a system flowchart is not a part of a program documentation package

System Analysis and Design Questions