CSM Scrum Events Practice Question
Exhibit
{
"event": "Sprint Review",
"attendees": [
"Developers",
"Product Owner",
"Invited Stakeholders",
"External Quality Auditors"
],
"primary_activity": "Demonstrating the completed increment and inspecting backlog changes",
"duration_limit": "4 hours for a 1-month sprint"
}Refer to the exhibit. A newly appointed Scrum Master reviews this configuration summary for the Sprint Review event. Which element represents a violation of official Scrum principles?
⚠ Common exam trap
Test-takers frequently miss the subtle distinction that the Sprint Review is an inspection and adaptation working session, not just a formal software demo for presentation.
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
✓
Restricting the primary activity solely to demonstrating the completed increment without collaborative discussion on backlog adaptation.
The Sprint Review is a collaborative working session where the Scrum Team and stakeholders inspect the outcome of the Sprint and discuss future adaptations. While the timebox of up to 4 hours for a 1-month sprint is correct and the attendee list is fully compliant, treating the event merely as a one-way demonstration rather than a collaborative working session violates its spirit.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Allowing external quality auditors and invited stakeholders to attend and provide direct feedback to the Scrum Team.
Why it's wrong here
Scrum explicitly welcomes invited stakeholders and others whose feedback helps inspect the Increment; external auditors attending is permitted, not a violation. It tempts because audit involvement feels intrusive, yet the Sprint Review is an open working session, not a closed ceremony.
- ✓
Restricting the primary activity solely to demonstrating the completed increment without collaborative discussion on backlog adaptation.
Why this is correct
The Sprint Review exists to inspect the increment and adapt the Product Backlog collaboratively with stakeholders. Limiting it to a demonstration with no discussion on backlog adaptation removes that empirical inspection and adaptation, violating Scrum's defined purpose for the event.
- ✗
Allocating a 4-hour maximum timebox for a standard one-month Sprint duration as defined in the configuration.
Why it's wrong here
Scrum prescribes a four-hour timebox for a one-month Sprint Review, so this allocation complies rather than violates. It tempts because long meetings seem excessive, but the timebox is a defined Scrum rule, and shortening it would breach the framework.
- ✗
Requiring the presence of both the Product Owner and the Developers alongside stakeholders during the review session.
Why it's wrong here
Scrum mandates that the Product Owner and Developers attend the Sprint Review alongside stakeholders; their presence is required, not a violation. This option is tempting because stakeholder-only reviews are common in traditional gate meetings, but excluding the team contradicts Scrum's inspect-and-adapt purpose.
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CSM question from scratch — 312 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Scrum Alliance exam blueprint
This CSM practice question is part of Courseiva's free Scrum Alliance 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 CSM exam.