In software testing, which of the following techniques is generally best suited to automatically detect unreachable code in a program?

Introduction / Context:
Unreachable code is code that can never be executed during any possible program run because there is no control flow path leading to it. Detecting unreachable code is important for improving maintainability, reducing confusion, and eliminating dead logic that might hide defects. This question asks which testing or quality technique is best suited for identifying unreachable code automatically.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- We are comparing several techniques: code inspections, static analysis tools, code reviews, and test management tools.
- The goal is specifically to find unreachable code, not just any general defect.
- We assume that the code base is large enough that a fully manual search would be expensive and error prone.

Concept / Approach:
Static analysis tools examine source code or compiled intermediate representations without executing the program. They build control flow graphs and data flow models to detect potential errors, including unreachable code, unused variables, and suspicious constructs. While humans can sometimes spot unreachable code during reviews or inspections, automated static analysis is far more systematic and scalable. Test management tools focus on planning and tracking tests, not on code structure analysis. Therefore, the best answer emphasises automated static analysis.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. Code inspections and code reviews involve humans reading and discussing code. They can detect unreachable code, but the process is manual and may miss subtle cases. 2. A static analysis tool parses the code, builds internal models, and runs algorithms to identify code blocks that have no incoming control flow edges. 3. This automated process can systematically find unreachable branches, dead catch blocks, or code after unconditional returns or exits. 4. Test management tools mainly handle test cases, schedules, and defect tracking; they do not analyse code directly. 5. Because the question asks what would best be used to find unreachable code, we look for the tool that directly analyses the code structure, which is the static analysis tool.

Verification / Alternative check:
Popular static analysis tools for different languages, such as SonarQube, lint tools, and many IDE integrated analysers, routinely report unreachable code as one of their findings. If you run such a tool on a project that contains a return statement followed by further statements in the same block, it will flag the latter as unreachable. Human reviews may also find these issues, but they are not guaranteed or automated. This demonstrates why static analysis is considered the best general solution for this problem.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A, code inspections, can reveal unreachable code but are manual and depend heavily on reviewer skill and time; they are not the best automatic approach. Option C, code reviews, are similar and focus on design quality, style, and logic rather than systematic reachability analysis. Option D, a test management tool, manages test assets and execution summaries but has no understanding of code structure. Only option B directly names a static analysis tool, which is designed to detect issues such as unreachable code through automatic analysis.

Common Pitfalls:
A common misconception is that high test coverage alone ensures no unreachable code remains. In reality, unreachable code has zero coverage by definition and may not be noticed if teams focus only on more visible metrics. Another pitfall is to assume that code reviews will always catch such problems; in practice, reviewers may focus on business logic and overlook dead branches. Integrating static analysis into the build pipeline helps catch unreachable code early and consistently, making it a valuable complement to manual reviews and testing.

Final Answer:
The technique best suited to automatically detect unreachable code is using a static analysis tool.