The costs involved in testing and quality assurance is ___________ than the costs associated with external failures.
-
More
-
Less
-
Same
-
Unimaginable
Testing and quality assurance costs are LESS than external failure costs. Catching defects internally (through testing) is much cheaper than releasing defective software, which causes customer support, warranty claims, reputation damage, and lost sales. This is the core economic argument for investing in QA.
To answer this question, we need to understand the concepts of testing, quality assurance, and external failures.
Testing and quality assurance involve activities aimed at detecting and preventing defects in a product before it is released to customers. These activities typically include testing the product against various scenarios and requirements, identifying and fixing any issues found, and ensuring that the product meets quality standards.
On the other hand, external failures refer to defects or issues that are discovered by customers or users after the product has been released. These failures can result in customer dissatisfaction, product recalls, warranty claims, or even legal issues.
The given statement states that the costs involved in testing and quality assurance are less than the costs associated with external failures. This means that investing in testing and quality assurance upfront to prevent defects is more cost-effective than dealing with the consequences of external failures.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
B) Less
This option is correct because it aligns with the understanding that the costs involved in testing and quality assurance are lower compared to the costs associated with external failures.