Software Quality Assurance Practice Exam

Why is a code inspection generally considered more effective than a desk-checking process?

1. Because it is effective in finding high-level design errors

2. Because it finds difficult, obscure, and tricky errors

3. Because the author of the program is personally checking the code

4. Because people other than the author are involved in the process

The correct answer is: Because people other than the author are involved in the process

A code inspection is generally considered more effective than a desk-checking process because it involves collaboration and diverse perspectives, which enhances the overall quality of the code being reviewed. In a code inspection, a team of individuals, often including other developers, testers, and sometimes even stakeholders, examines the code together. This collaborative effort allows for various insights, expertise, and fresh viewpoints to surface, potentially uncovering errors or design flaws that the original author might overlook. The active involvement of people other than the author can also reduce biases and assumptions that the author may have about the code, leading to a more thorough examination. This collective scrutiny is particularly beneficial for identifying logic errors, discrepancies, and issues related to overall code quality that might not be as readily apparent in a solitary review or desk-checking scenario. While the other choices highlight specific advantages, they do not encapsulate the overall collaborative nature that distinguishes inspections. High-level design errors, obscure errors, and personal checks from the author can be valuable, but they do not match the comprehensive benefits garnered from the diverse interactions and discussions that occur during a code inspection.