Business Rules and Logic Interpretation

Option A 'An open order must be placed by a customer' is a valid constraint rule establishing that open orders have a required relationship with customers. Option B is about data integrity (don't delete customers with orders) which is a different category of rule. Given the question asks for rule requirements, A is the correct constraint statement.

Option A 'A finished game must not be tied' is the proper way to state this constraint rule. Option B 'A game must not finish if tied' is awkwardly phrased and less clear. Business rule statements should be direct and unambiguous about what state or condition is not allowed.

Option B correctly adds 'the project' to complete the rule statement, making it clear that team members stay until the project itself is finished. Option A 'until finished' is ambiguous - finished could refer to the member's tasks, the sprint, or something else. Business rules must be precise and complete.

Option B provides a complete two-part rule: first defining how amount paid is computed (sum of payments), then establishing the constraint that paid amount must be at least the amount due. Option A only gives the second part. A complete derived value rule must specify both the computation and any constraints on the result.

Option A is the correct rule statement. Option B changes the structure by moving 'By the close of registration' to the beginning, which makes it less direct. In business rule writing, it's standard to state what must happen (student enrolled in at least 2 courses) followed by the condition (by close of registration). This is clearer and more directly actionable.

Option B is the correct business rule statement. It uses proper rule language with 'A booth must not be...' and clearly states the constraint. Option A 'No less than two people in booths...' is informal and doesn't clearly establish what entity is being constrained or under what conditions. Business rules need precise entity and condition specification.

Option A correctly identifies the account as the entity for the withdrawal rule - withdrawals happen from accounts, not from customers directly. Option B 'A customer may make a withdrawal only if their account is active' changes the focus to the customer. In financial systems, the account is the proper entity for transaction rules because accounts have the active/inactive status.

Option B is the correct rule statement using proper business rule language: 'An order must not be shipped if...' clearly states the constraint, the entity (order), the prohibited action (shipped), and the condition (balance exceeds credit authorization). Option A 'Don't ship orders if...' is an imperative instruction rather than a declarative rule statement. Business rules should be declarative statements of what must or must not happen.

A proper rule statement must be a complete sentence with clear subject and obligation. 'A customer must place an order' is grammatically complete and expresses a requirement clearly. 'customer places order' lacks proper sentence structure and modal verbs indicating obligation.

A proper rule statement must be grammatically complete and clear. 'A freshman must not participate in any honors club' is grammatically correct and uses 'any' appropriately with the negative 'must not'. The singular 'honors clubs' in option B would require 'no' instead of 'any' to be grammatically correct.

Rule statements should be direct and concise. 'A retired employee must not be assigned an employment counselor' directly states the prohibition in clear, simple language. The conditional form in option B, while grammatically correct, is less direct and more wordy than necessary for a rule statement.

In rule writing, the condition should modify the event triggering the rule. Option A correctly places 'during a snowstorm' as when the purchase order is taken. Option B illogically suggests the approval itself occurs during a snowstorm, which is not the intended meaning of the business rule.

'Each team' expresses universal quantification - every single team without exception. 'A team' is weaker and could be misinterpreted as referring to some particular team. Business rules require precise, universal language that leaves no ambiguity about scope.

Option B is more precise and formal. 'The number of seats... must not exceed 30' directly addresses the numerical constraint with maximum clarity. Option A's phrasing 'include more than 30 seats' is awkward - sections contain students, while seats are a capacity metric.

Option B is more explicit about what is being counted - teachers who teach a specific course and advisors who advise that same course. This removes ambiguity about whether the count spans multiple courses or unclear categories. The phrasing 'combined total' is also clearer than 'involve'.

Option B is simpler and more direct. Business rules should state requirements clearly without unnecessary temporal qualifiers. The requirement that an order has a promised shipment date is a standing condition, not something tied only to the creation event. Option A's 'When an order is created' adds unnecessary specificity.

Option B uses a clearer structure for listing multiple conditions. The bullet format makes it immediately clear that there are two independent conditions that trigger the hold. While Option A is logically equivalent, Option B's presentation is clearer and less prone to misreading, especially as rules grow more complex.