Free Microsoft Dynamics MB-820 Actual Exam Questions - Question 15 Discussion
Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution. After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result these questions will not appear in the review screen. A company plans to optimize its permission sets. The company has the following permission sets: 
You need to provide the following implementation for a third permission set: • Create a new Permission Set C that is a composite of Permission Set A and Permission Set B. • Assign Permission Set C to a user. You need to ensure that the user has only read access to the Job table. Solution: Set the Included Permission Sets property to Permission Set B and the Excluded PermissionSets property to Permission Set A. Does the solution meet the goal?
B, excluding A doesn’t block B’s write access if B already includes it.
This one feels like B again. If Permission Set B already grants more than read access, including it without properly adjusting its rights won’t restrict the user to read-only. Excluding A won't cut off write access if B still allows it, so it doesn’t meet the goal.
Probably B because excluding A won’t override any write permissions granted by B.
B tbh, excluding Permission Set A while including B sounds off since typically, included sets add permissions rather than restrict. If A has any write permissions on the Job table, excluding it might not negate those rights if B grants more access. Usually, you can't “subtract” permissions this way. The safer bet would be to create a new permission set that explicitly grants only read access rather than trying to combine and exclude like this. So this solution probably doesn’t meet the goal as it stands.
Makes sense to exclude A if it has write rights; B fits better here, so no (B).
I don't think excluding A while including B would restrict access correctly. B