Refer to the exhibit. The file script.sh has permissions -rwxr-x--- and is owned by root with group 'developers'. A user named 'alice' is a member of the 'developers' group. Which command allows alice to execute the script without changing the file's group ownership?
Adding alice to the developers group gives her the group execute permission.
Why this answer
Option A is correct because the script's permissions (-rwxr-x---) grant execute permission to the owner (root) and the group (developers), but not to others. Alice is already a member of the developers group, so the command 'usermod -aG developers alice' would not change her group membership (it would simply re-add her). However, the question asks which command allows Alice to execute the script without changing the file's group ownership.
Since Alice is already in the developers group, she already has execute permission via the group. The command in A is redundant but does not change group ownership, and it is the only option that does not alter the file's group or permissions in a way that violates the constraint. The core reasoning is that Alice already has group execute permission, so no command is actually needed, but among the options, A is the only one that does not change the file's group ownership.
Exam trap
The trap here is that candidates assume Alice does not have group execute permission and choose options that change file permissions or ownership, missing that the question's constraint ('without changing the file's group ownership') is a red herring — the real issue is that Alice already has access, so the only 'correct' command among the options is the one that does nothing harmful, but Linux Foundation often tests whether you recognize that group membership already grants access and that modifying the file is unnecessary.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option B is wrong because 'chmod o+x script.sh' adds execute permission for 'others', which changes the file's permissions (not group ownership) but violates the implicit requirement that the file's permissions remain unchanged (the question asks for a command that allows execution without changing group ownership, but B changes permissions, which is not prohibited, but it is unnecessary since Alice already has group execute). However, the more precise reason: B grants execute to all users not in the file's group, which is a security risk and does not leverage the existing group permission. Option C is wrong because 'chmod u+x script.sh' adds execute permission for the owner (root), which does not affect Alice's ability to execute the script (she is not the owner) and does not change group ownership, but it is irrelevant and does not grant Alice execute permission.
Option D is wrong because 'chown alice script.sh' changes the file's owner to Alice, which directly changes the file's ownership (not group ownership, but the question says 'without changing the file's group ownership' — this changes owner, not group, but it is still a change to ownership, and it would give Alice owner execute permission, but the question explicitly says 'without changing the file's group ownership', implying no ownership changes at all; also, changing owner requires root privileges and is not the intended solution).