The correct answer is that EVM can’t tell Hunter, or the team, that what they are providing is valuable to the project. The other responses are incorrect because EVM can indeed be used to track the performance of a project if the baseline hasn’t changed; EVM is able to adequately track if the project is on time and budget; while EVM can’t calculate the business value of the project, it can show if the project is on budget or not.

The correct answer is due to smaller work statements and less legal wrangling, the process is often faster. Because planning is done along the way, it’s likely that SOWs (Statement of Work) are shorter. SOWs scope information would be less defined, or they’d be issued for smaller amounts of work. The other responses are incorrect because contracts are not discussed daily; they shouldn’t be evaluated daily or within a certain timebox; procurement is not always consistent for all projects.

The correct answer is that for the most part, they’ll decrease, but may increase at times if unanticipated work is found. In general, remaining work should decrease each time an item is completed, but if there are defects or unanticipated work, expect increases. The other responses are incorrect because remaining work will not decrease if unanticipated work is added to the scope; unless no one is working, remaining work won’t hold steady over time; after an MVP, remaining work should not drop sharply because the time up to a release should show a steady decrease in work remaining unless scope is added.

The correct answer is to charge nothing extra for changes if the work doesn’t increase. Typically, agile contracts can accommodate change as long as the overall volume of work doesn’t increase. The other responses are incorrect because if the total amount of work doesn’t change, the contract doesn’t need to be renegotiated or broken; agile projects don’t need a formal change control process with the entire team’s approval.

The correct answer is that the vendor will estimate the second package at $45,000 and tentatively estimate the third at $40,000. When a fixed-price work package is arranged, it’s expected that the vendor will change the price of future work packages if additional information is found to better help them estimate. The other responses are incorrect because vendors are not required to keep estimates the same if new information or risks are discovered; nor are they expected or required to renegotiate. The vendor can re-estimate the work packages, and the company can always choose to decline to work with them again. For work packages with varying prices, the vendor should never charge an average amount.

The correct answer is not what the customer really intended. The gulf of evaluation is defined as the difference between what the customer intended and what was actually built. The other answers are incorrect because they don’t accurately portray the gulf of evaluation. The gulf of evaluation has nothing to do with what the developers or ScrumMaster want; internal processes need to make sure that the first release is what the developers delivered so that choice is not a reasonable option; the gulf of evaluation is a misunderstanding between the customer and the delivery team.

The correct answer to is to allow for the speediest possible feedback cycle where issues are resolved almost immediately. The primary reason for using pair programming is to allow for quick validation and verification. The other responses are incorrect because it’s not expected that pair programming relates to the supervision of a developer; it does not prevent all defects; its primary focus is not on company standards.

The correct answer is that exploratory testing should be used to verify functionality in addition to functionally focused testing. The other responses are incorrect because exploratory testing is used for testing functional aspects of the complete story, not for testing within the story; exploratory testing is not used in the place of functional testing, nor is it focused on the functional details in user stories.

The correct answer is additional time spent on the implementation of automated testing as part of their build efforts. Continuous integration requires that automated tests be written up front. The other responses are incorrect because continuous integration doesn’t involve the test team to be burdened for each release, nor can it guarantee zero bugs. Continuous integration can and will impact the writers of the test scripts, who also write the automated tests.

The correct answer is the creation of unit tests before code being written and refactoring code once it is written. Test-driven development, for the sake of maintainability, focuses on unit tests being written before code and refactoring. The other responses are incorrect because they are not necessarily part of Test-Driven Development. Manual peer testing is not a real term; pair programming and production smoke tests are irrelevant to Test-Driven Development.