hardMultiple Choice
CISA Practice Question: Is developing a critical application using an…
An organization is developing a critical application using an agile methodology. The project sponsor demands frequent deliveries but the development team is concerned about insufficient testing. Which of the following BEST mitigates this risk?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many exam-takers choose Option B (increase manual testing) because they equate 'more testing' with 'better quality,' failing to recognize that manual testing cannot keep pace with agile's rapid delivery cycles and that automation is the only scalable solution to integrate testing into every iteration.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Implement continuous integration and automated testing
Continuous integration (CI) and automated testing enable frequent, reliable code integration and immediate feedback on defects, directly addressing the tension between rapid delivery and insufficient testing. Automated tests run on every commit, catching regressions early without manual overhead, which is essential for agile sprints where manual testing alone cannot scale to match delivery velocity.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Deploy with known defects and fix them in the next sprint
Why it's wrong here
Shipping known defects into production on a critical application transfers unmitigated risk to live operations, where remediation costs far exceed pre-release fixes. This approach suits low-criticality internal tools where fast feedback outweighs defect impact, not systems where a failure has material business or regulatory consequences.
- ✗
Increase manual testing effort at the end of each sprint
Why it's wrong here
Adding manual testing at sprint end does not scale with frequent releases and leaves regression coverage dependent on human effort, so defects still escape. Manual end-of-sprint testing is appropriate for small, stable releases; frequent delivery of a critical application requires automated regression suites executed continuously within the pipeline.
- ✗
Extend the release cycle to allow more time for testing
Why it's wrong here
Lengthening the release cycle directly contradicts the sponsor's demand for frequent deliveries and reverts toward waterfall cadence. It would be the right answer if the sponsor prioritised stability over delivery frequency, but here the constraint is fixed, so testing must be automated and embedded within each sprint instead.
- ✓
Implement continuous integration and automated testing
Why this is correct
Automated testing within a continuous integration pipeline runs on every commit, so defects surface immediately rather than accumulating. This directly satisfies the sponsor's demand for frequent deliveries while removing the team's testing-capacity constraint, since regression checks execute without manual effort.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 934 original CISA practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CISA practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISA exam.