vault backup: 2023-09-27 09:34:33

.obsidian/workspace.json

@@ -69,7 +69,8 @@
       }
     ],
     "direction": "horizontal",
-    "width": 300
+    "width": 300,
+    "collapsed": true
   },
   "right": {
     "id": "d8cc89662b1baf06",
@@ -148,7 +149,7 @@
       "digitalgarden:Digital Garden Publication Center": false
     }
   },
-  "active": "4d5a457a9ab7159d",
+  "active": "3ca14d4a6c304083",
   "lastOpenFiles": [
     "4a1s/RAS/PL - Aula 1.md",
     "4a1s/RAS/PL - Aula 2.md",

4a1s/RAS/PL - Aula 2.md

@@ -9,11 +9,20 @@
 >4. Surveys
 >
 >>[!hint]- Resolução
->>The option should be 
+>>The option 1 should be the chosen one, since it allows .
 >>
->>Option 1 - 
 >>Option 2- The software already exists. Why would one create a prototype for an app that already exists?
->>Option 3 -
->>Option 4 - Surveys may be biased and thus create a biased 
+>>Option 3 - Interviews may be biased and take a lot of time, with a few selected people.
+>>Option 4 - Surveys may also be biased and thus create biased results.
 
 
+>[!help]+ Ex 5.2
+>For the system indicated in the previous question, during the requirements elicitation process, some students were interviewed. They have indicated the functionalities that they would like to see incorporated in the final solution. Afterwards, the client has requested to remove some of the requirements proposed by the students. Which of the following arguments is the less strong for justify the removal of those requirements?
+>
+>1. The requirements from the students are not representative of those from the student population.
+>2. The requirements from the students are ambiguous and cannot be tested.
+>3. The requirements from the students are contrary to the interests of the client.
+>4. The client does not consider the students as system stakeholders.
+>   
+>>[!hint]- Resolução
+