A test plan compares only the generated class names to the original COBOL paragraph names. What is wrong with this approach?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You're comparing labels, not behavior. Names can match while the code does something completely different, so this test plan can't prove equivalence.
Full Explanation
The correct answer is the option that says matching names says nothing about whether the underlying behaviour, outputs or data effects are equivalent. A name is a label; it carries no information about what the code actually computes, so comparing names cannot establish equivalence. The option about Java class names being case-sensitive is incorrect because case sensitivity is a naming-convention detail, not the core problem with this approach. The option saying COBOL paragraph names cannot be mapped to Java class names under any circumstances is incorrect because paragraph names can, in fact, be mapped to Java identifiers; the issue is that doing so proves nothing about behaviour. The option claiming this approach requires more compute resources than executing the code is incorrect because comparing names is actually cheaper than executing tests, not more expensive; cost is not the objection. For the exam, reject any validation approach that compares labels instead of behaviour.