Free AWS Cloud Practitioner CLF-C02 Actual Exam Questions – Edition

It’s B for sure. DynamoDB is fast but not really in-memory and it’s proprietary, so that rules out A. EBS is just block storage, no in-memory capability, so C is out. Redshift is for data warehousing and doesn’t do in-memory open source stuff either, so D is off the table. ElastiCache supports Redis and Memcached, which are open source and in-memory, so it fits perfectly here.

DynamoDB isn’t in-memory, so B fits best for open source compatibility.

B imo, Business Support helps with operational issues but doesn’t guide architectural design. The Well-Architected Framework is the only one that really covers all best practices across the board.

It’s D for sure. The Well-Architected Framework is the only one that explicitly guides you through all those pillars—reliability, security, efficiency, and cost. The others either focus on a single aspect (like C’s principle of least privilege) or are tools/support rather than comprehensive frameworks. This question wants something holistic, and D fits that best.

It’s B because AWS Consulting Partners offer direct hands-on migration support, which the company needs since they lack AWS skills. Managed Services are more about ongoing operations, not migration help.

D/B? Managed Services help run workloads on AWS but don’t really guide the migration itself. Consulting Partners are the experts who assist with planning and moving workloads, so B fits better for initial migration help.

It’s B, since consolidated billing (A) won’t break down costs by project or department.

Maybe A could confuse some, but it’s mainly for combining bills, not detailed tracking. B is best because tags let you slice costs by different criteria like department and project easily.

Makes sense to pick B because elasticity literally means adjusting capacity as needed, which fits scaling perfectly. Speed of innovation (A) seems more about development speed, not infrastructure scaling. B

Option B for sure, since elasticity is all about flexible scaling with demand.

B/C? The key part is validating processes and staff familiarity, which sounds like refining procedures regularly (B), not just making reversible changes (C) or automating (A).

A seems off because it’s about automating operations, not simulating. D feels unrelated since it’s about company structure. So it’s probably C, testing changes in a way that can be reversed if needed.

Option C makes sense since AWS lets you do penetration tests on these resources if you stick to their approved process, which covers EC2, NAT gateways, and ELBs specifically.

Probably C since AWS permits penetration testing if you follow their rules exactly.

Probably A, because multiple AZs within one region are designed to be physically separate with independent power sources, which fits the redundancy requirement better than staying in one AZ like option C.

Maybe A makes the most sense since multiple Availability Zones are designed to be physically separate with independent power but still in the same region, meeting both criteria.

Option B is the way to go since it provides a physical, dedicated link. VPNs run over the internet, so they don’t meet the dedicated connection requirement here.

Makes sense to go with B here since the question says "dedicated connection." VPN uses the internet, so it’s not really dedicated. B it is.

B tbh, the question specifically asks about Amazon RDS compatibility, which mainly covers relational database engines. Apache Cassandra (A), MongoDB (B), and Neo4j (C) are NoSQL or graph databases and don’t run on RDS. PostgreSQL (D) is one of the core relational engines supported in RDS, so it fits perfectly. The others might be offered in other AWS managed services but not under RDS itself.

That lines up with what I know—Amazon RDS supports traditional relational DBs, so D is the clear choice since the others are not part of RDS offerings.

Option D and E make the most sense. AWS guarantees high availability through multiple data centers, and their massive scale helps reduce costs, which companies benefit from directly. The others are either misleading or extra services.

D/E? AWS definitely boosts availability with its infrastructure, and economies of scale make a lot of sense since they handle massive workloads, driving costs down. Training and support are usually extra or optional, and security is a shared responsibility, so B and A don’t fit. The question’s about benefits from moving workloads, so the reliable uptime and cost benefits are the standout picks.

This one feels like it’s about regular tracking and analyzing costs over time, so A fits best for me too. Trusted Advisor (B) gives recommendations but isn't really meant for ongoing cost review reports. D is more about setting alerts when budgets are exceeded, not a tool for detailed reviews. So I’d go with A.

Not C, AWS Pricing just shows pricing info, it doesn’t analyze your actual usage or recommend savings. B could help but it's broader; A is built specifically for detailed cost analysis and trends.

D imo, if the company already uses Microsoft AD, AWS Directory Service can sync identities and provide seamless access control for SaaS apps. It’s solid for integrating existing user bases.

D imo, since AWS Directory Service integrates with existing Microsoft AD and can help manage user access centrally, especially if the company already uses AD for identity management.

Option C—billing data relates directly to usage and impacting factors.

Isn’t AWS Organizations mainly for managing multiple accounts? Hard to see it giving environmental impact data.

I think we can rule out A and D quickly since they don’t really deal with cost structure. Between B and C, the question highlights shifting from fixed to variable expenses, which sounds more like how you pay rather than cost savings from scale. Does that make sense?

It’s C because on-demand services let you pay only for what you actually use, which is the exact opposite of upfront fixed costs. Other options don’t capture this cost flexibility as well.