Free PMI-ACP Actual Exam Questions

A/C? Starting with the test manager’s input (C) makes sense, but if their capacity is low, negotiating the scope (A) can reduce delays. Jumping to escalation (B) feels too early without these steps.

B might be needed if negotiations fail, but testing first (C) seems smarter now.

It’s A because updating just the acceptance criteria can clarify requirements without overcomplicating the whole story. Coaching keeps it simple and helps the product owner improve in future, rather than forcing a full workshop.

Makes sense to tackle it directly with a workshop, so C.

A imo, synchronous fits better here because the team completes tasks on time despite low vocal interaction, suggesting they work in sync without needing much discussion.

It’s a bit vague, but feels like B from the options given.

Makes sense to get everyone on the same page upfront, so A.

Maybe C could work here. Using sprint demo feedback regularly helps keep everyone on the same page by showing progress and getting continuous input, which might clear up misunderstandings before they grow. It’s more practical than locking things down in a contract or just trying to agree upfront once. Plus, sprint demos are built into agile processes, so leveraging that feedback loop seems like a natural way to avoid these clashes over epics.

Makes sense to skip C since charging more just because the client gets extra profit feels off. Also, D assumes resources are available and trained, which might not be true. So B stands out since it’s about keeping quality and risks in check instead of rushing blindly.

I’m not sure A is right because just rushing might mess up quality. D could help, but what if there’s no budget for extra resources? Feels like we need more info before saying yes to speeding up.

It’s not just about catching misunderstandings early like in C, but also about showing progress tangibly, which builds trust and keeps stakeholders engaged. If they only see the final product, issues might come up too late. So D also has a point—stakeholders can better judge if the investment makes sense when they see work in progress, not just finished results. This transparency helps avoid surprises and aligns expectations throughout the project.

It’s C because getting immediate feedback helps adjust the product direction quickly, saving time and effort later. Early input avoids costly rework down the line.

Option A feels more likely since Team B’s scope estimate is much lower but their velocity is proportionally lower too, which might mean they’re underestimating the total work compared to Team A.

A. If the teams used the same scale, Team B’s lower scope estimate suggests they’re underestimating the total work compared to Team A. This points to potential differences in scope understanding or estimation approach.

D imo, because if the team is experienced in predictive delivery, it might be better to start applying agile practices gradually to specific parts of the work. This way, they can get hands-on experience without overwhelming them with a full agile overhaul right away. Also, assigning the work to team members already familiar with agile can help mentor others. Jumping straight into full agile roles and training (A) or broad workshops (B) might be too much too fast for experienced but non-agile teams. Gradual adoption with real deliverables seems more practical here.

A, because assigning roles and focused training directly targets the team's skill gaps.

I get why planning poker (D) stands out since it’s the classic for story points, but the question just says “collectively estimating relative size,” which sounds like affinity too. Affinity lets the team sort stories by size without going card-by-card, speeding up estimates. One-to-one comparison (B) feels off since it’s more about direct pairing of stories, which isn’t really “collective” in the same way. So, could the key be in how detailed or fast the team wants to be?

Option C makes sense too since affinity estimation groups stories by size, helping teams agree on relative story points without detailed one-to-one or card-based comparisons.

It’s B since the info radiator is meant for quick, transparent updates everyone can see.

B/D? If it’s just status info, the information radiator (B) should have it updated and visible. Emailing (D) might work if the exec prefers written updates, but meeting feels like overkill here.

D imo, because if the task’s taking too long, it might be better to move it to the next iteration rather than risk messing up the current sprint’s goals. This keeps the team focused and realistic.

It’s A because the team should focus on finishing tasks once started, not shifting them mid-iteration.

B tbh feels risky here since averaging guesses isn’t reliable for a new team with no sprint history. Better to wait for actual data rather than assume based on opinions or past projects.

Option D feels right because velocity is empirical; you can’t just guess or average it without any real sprints done. Let the team run a few sprints and then discuss velocity based on actual results.

Probably B. It’s smart to have a mix of experts and generalists to handle different parts of the project and figure out where training might be needed early on.

Option B definitely covers more bases than just picking top performers or eliminating based on conflicts. It’s about balancing skills and spotting training needs, which feels more practical for a fresh project.

C imo, priorities guide what actually gets built next, not costs or schedules.

Option C sounds right because the product owner needs the customer to prioritize features based on value, not get stuck in detailed costs or schedules. That way, the iteration focuses on what matters most.

A/B? The deadline’s fixed, so extending time (C) isn’t really an option. Hiring someone new (D) won’t help immediately since they’d need ramp-up time. Between A and B, reducing scope (A) is proactive planning—better to commit only to what can realistically be done than just hope to get as much as possible done (B). That way, the quality and delivery are controlled rather than risking partial or rushed features.

Maybe B could work too, focusing on delivering what’s possible now without trying to stretch resources or change plans. Better to get something solid done than risk delays or complexity.