(1) No.1とNo. b のデータを使うと，会員の申込者が同一月に複数受講した場合に，受講料の割引が適用されたことを確認できる。
(2) No. c のデータを使うと，欠席の場合にテキスト代が請求されないことを確認できる。
出典 平成24年度 春期 ITパスポート試験 問91
解説
問 91
//
×Incorrectア
b-2 is wrong. The applicant of No.2 is Gijutsu Taro, a different person from Shiken Hanako in No.1. Even though the billing applicant manager is the same Joho Taro, what you want to check is “the discount when one applicant takes multiple courses in the same month”, so a combination with different applicants does not verify anything. c-4 is also wrong: Course R in No.4 is a course whose textbook fee is “not billed” to begin with. You could not distinguish whether nothing was billed because of the absence or because it was never billed anyway, so it is test data with no discriminating power.
×Incorrectイ
b-2 is wrong for the same reason as in ア (the applicant is Gijutsu Taro, a different person from Shiken Hanako in No.1). Moreover, c-3 is decisively wrong: No.3 is “Attended” data. You cannot use attendance data to test the behavior for an absence.
○ウ
正解The premises of this multi-part question are the training course table (Course P: starts Sep 4 / course fee 10,000 yen / textbook fee 2,000 yen; Course Q: starts Sep 17 / 8,000 yen / 2,000 yen; Course R: starts Sep 25 / 20,000 yen / textbook fee not billed) and the discount table (the discount rate on the course fee is decided by two conditions, “is the person a member” and “are there charges for multiple courses in the same month”; 20% when both hold, 10% when only one holds). Test data must be chosen so that “only the condition you want to check holds, and its effect shows up in the billing statement”.
About b: No.1 is member / applicant Shiken Hanako / Course P (starts in September). To create the situation “a member applicant took multiple courses in the same month”, you need data for another course with the same applicant, Shiken Hanako, and the same starting month, September. No.3 is member / Shiken Hanako / Course Q (starts Sep 17), so combining No.1 and No.3 gives the same applicant taking two courses in September, and you can use the billing statement to check whether the “member Y / multiple courses in the same month Y” cell of the discount table (20% discount) took effect. Therefore b is 3. Note that the judgement is based on the starting month of the course, not on the application date.
About c: To confirm that “the textbook fee is not billed when the applicant is absent”, you need absence data for a course that would generate a textbook fee in the first place; otherwise you cannot tell. No.2 is Course Q (textbook fee 2,000 yen) with “Absent”, so if the textbook fee on the billing statement shows as not billed, you can judge that the behavior matches the specification. Therefore c is 2, and the combination is ウ (b-3, c-2).
×Incorrectエ
b-3 is correct, but c-4 is wrong. Course R in No.4 has a textbook fee that is “not billed” to begin with, so even if no textbook fee appears on the billing statement, you cannot separate whether that is due to the absence or simply the original specification. Only No.2, which is an absence from Course Q with its 2,000 yen textbook fee, allows you to confirm it.
ここがポイント
A basic principle of test data design: let only the condition you want to check hold, and keep the other conditions identical. Also choose data that lets you “tell from the result that the specification actually took effect” (Course R, whose textbook fee is never billed anyway, cannot verify the no-billing rule for absences).
The business rules of this multi-part question: the discount on the course fee is decided by the two conditions “is the person a member” and “are there charges for multiple courses in the same month”; the month is judged by the course start date, not the application date, and the judgement is made per applicant. The textbook fee is not subject to the discount, and it is not billed when the applicant is absent.