Why should unsupported COBOL constructs be checked as their own category, separate from general input errors?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You need to check unsupported COBOL constructs separately because they need a different fix, like manual handling or rewriting. Malformed input gets fixed by correcting the input, so don't lump them together.
Full Explanation
The correct answer is the option saying an unsupported construct needs a different resolution, such as manual handling or rewriting, rather than a fix to malformed input. Malformed input is fixed by correcting the input; an unsupported construct is a gap in what the tool can transform and needs manual rewriting, so treating them as one category leads to the wrong fix.
The option saying unsupported constructs and malformed input always produce the identical error message is wrong because diagnostics distinguish them, which is why they form separate checks.
The option saying unsupported constructs only occur in COBOL written before a certain year is wrong because support depends on tool capabilities, not COBOL age.
The option saying checking is optional and can be skipped if input looks well-formed is wrong because skipping leaves a real, common cause of transformation failure unexamined.
For the exam, keep unsupported constructs as a distinct troubleshooting category from malformed input.