Salesforce-Platform-Administrator-II Practice Test Questions

Explanation:

🟢 Correct Option Explanation:

✅ Option C: Lookup relationship with Read/Write sharing setting.
This is correct because the requirement is to allow users to link multiple Cases to multiple Outcomes. A lookup relationship is the right choice when you need flexibility between two objects without enforcing strict parent-child dependencies like master-detail does. The additional detail here is the sharing setting. Since the requirement states that any user who can view the Case must also be able to create the link, we need the lookup field to allow Read/Write access. This way, users can create, update, and manage links between Cases and Outcomes, ensuring full participation by anyone with Case visibility. In short, the lookup relationship provides the many-to-many flexibility, and the Read/Write sharing makes sure the link can be created, not just viewed.

🔴 Incorrect Options Explanations:

❌ Option A: Lookup relationship with Read-Only sharing setting.
While a lookup relationship is correct for creating links without enforcing parent-child restrictions, using Read-Only sharing here would not meet the requirement. Read-Only sharing means that users could see the relationship but not create or edit it. Since the business need specifically says users must be able to create links, Read-Only falls short. This makes option A incomplete and incorrect.

❌ Option B: Master-detail relationship with Read-Only sharing setting.
Master-detail relationships are too restrictive for this use case. In master-detail, the child record (Case Outcome) is tightly controlled by the parent, including ownership, visibility, and lifecycle. If we used master-detail, deleting a Case could also delete linked Case Outcomes, which may not be desirable. Adding Read-Only sharing further prevents users from creating links, making this doubly incorrect for the requirement.

❌ Option D: Master-detail relationship with Read/Write sharing setting.
This option allows edits, but the problem remains: a master-detail relationship enforces a strict parent-child dependency. The Case would act as the master, and the Outcome link would behave like a dependent record. This is not flexible for linking multiple Cases to multiple Outcomes because master-detail is best suited when the child has no meaning without the parent. Here, Outcomes may be shared across multiple Cases, so we need a lookup to allow this flexibility. Thus, while the Read/Write part is correct, the relationship type is wrong.

🔗 Reference: Salesforce Help – Relationship Fields

✨ Key Takeaway: Use a Lookup with Read/Write when you need flexible many-to-many linking and want users with record visibility to be able to create or edit the relationship.

Explanation:

Explanation for Correct Answer C: ✅
When an administrator creates and activates multiple record-triggered flows that run before the record is saved on the same object, the order of execution for these flows is unpredictable. In Salesforce, record-triggered flows are designed to execute when a record is created or updated, but Salesforce does not guarantee a specific order for multiple flows triggered by the same event on the same object. This means the administrator cannot rely on the flows running in a particular sequence, such as based on their creation date or name. To manage this, the administrator should consider consolidating related logic into a single flow or use subflows to control the sequence of operations explicitly.

Explanation for Incorrect Option A: ❌
The flow type does not determine the order of execution for record-triggered flows. Salesforce flows can be of different types, such as screen flows or autolaunched flows, but for record-triggered flows running before a record is saved, the type doesn’t dictate the order. Instead, Salesforce processes these flows in an unpredictable order, so relying on flow type to control execution is not correct.

Explanation for Incorrect Option B: ❌
The last created date of the flow does not determine the order of execution. While it might seem logical that newer flows run later, Salesforce does not use the creation date or any timestamp to decide the order of record-triggered flows. The system treats all active flows for the same trigger event as equal, leading to an unpredictable execution order.

Explanation for Incorrect Option D: ❌
The flows will not execute in alphabetical order based on their names. Salesforce does not sort or prioritize record-triggered flows by their names when determining execution order. Naming flows in a specific way might help with organization, but it has no impact on how Salesforce processes them, making this option incorrect.

Reference:
For more details on flow execution and considerations, check the Salesforce Help Center under “Flow Order of Execution” or the “Automate Your Business Processes with Flow” section.

Explanation:

✅ The correct solution is option D.
In a many-to-many relationship, access to the junction object records (Item) is governed by the sharing settings of the two parent objects (Account and Quota). The requirement states that a new account owner can only see an Item record if they also own the related Quota record. This indicates that the Organization-Wide Default (OWD) sharing settings for the Item object are likely set to Private, and sharing is controlled by its parent relationships.
For a user to see a junction object record, they must have at least Read access to both parent records involved in that relationship. Therefore, explicitly ensuring that the account owner has Read access to the Quota object (likely through a sharing rule, permission set, or team) is the direct and necessary step to grant access to the Item records, as it satisfies the prerequisite for parent-driven sharing.

❌ Option A is incorrect and potentially dangerous. Changing a master-detail relationship to a lookup relationship is a significant data model alteration that can lead to data loss (as the required field becomes optional) and completely breaks the inherited sharing and cascade delete behavior. It does not solve the core issue of granting read access to the parent Quota records.

❌ Option B is incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of junction objects. In a many-to-many relationship, both relationships from the junction object (Item) to the two parents (Account and Quota) are of the same type (either both master-detail or both lookup). You cannot designate one as "primary" and the other as "secondary" for sharing purposes in the way this option suggests. Sharing is evaluated symmetrically for both parents.

❌ Option C is incorrect because criteria-based sharing rules are used to share records from a parent object to users or groups (e.g., share Quota records with a role). They cannot be used to grant access to a parent object (Quota) based on a change in a different, related object (Account). The ISCHANGED function operates only on fields within the object for which the rule is created (the Quota object). It cannot reference fields from the Account object.

Reference: This solution is based on the core Salesforce security principle of "sharing through a parent." The official documentation states that for a user to view a record of a junction object, they must have Read access to both associated parent records. This is a fundamental concept tested in the sharing and visibility designer certification and is critical for Platform Administrator II.

Explanation:

The report type would be a Joined Report. This is the correct choice because the goal is to show two different types of records, Accounts and their related Cases, in a single report view. A Joined Report is specifically designed to combine data from multiple report types into a single report, allowing you to create different blocks of information that are related to each other.

⚙️ Detailed Explanation

B. Joined Report (✅ Correct)
A Joined Report is the correct choice because it is the only report type among the options that is specifically designed to combine and display data from two or more related objects in a single view. In this scenario, you would create a Joined Report with one block for Accounts and a second block for Cases. You could then filter the Cases block to show only those that are "Open" and link the two blocks together by their common Account field. This allows the sales manager to see the Accounts and their corresponding open cases side-by-side, directly fulfilling the business requirement.

A. Bucket Report (❌ Incorrect)
A Bucket Report is a feature used to categorize report records. It allows an administrator to group values for a field into buckets based on specified ranges or criteria. For example, you could bucket opportunities into "High", "Medium", and "Low" value ranges. However, bucketing is a function within a report and does not create the parent-child relationship needed to show Accounts and Cases together.

C. Summary Report (❌ Incorrect)
A Summary Report is used for grouping data and calculating summaries for fields. While you could group the data by Account, this report type is based on a single underlying report type (e.g., "Accounts with Cases") which already joins the two objects. A Summary Report itself does not have the ability to combine separate objects into a single report view, making it a less precise answer for the question of what report type to use to join the objects.

D. Matrix Report (❌ Incorrect)
A Matrix Report is used for cross-tabulation. It groups records both horizontally by a column field and vertically by a row field. This is ideal for comparing data in a grid format, such as showing the number of cases by both month and account owner. However, it is not designed for a simple parent-child list view and is a less appropriate choice for this specific business requirement.

Reference:
For more detailed information on joined reports and how they are used, you can refer to the official Salesforce documentation: Joined Reports

Explanation:

Correct Option Explanation:

✅ Option D: Page Layout.
Page layouts in Salesforce determine which fields, sections, and related lists are visible to users on the record detail page. When a sales user opens an Opportunity record, the fields they see in the details section are controlled directly by the assigned page layout. By editing the page layout, the administrator can add or remove fields, reorder sections, and tailor the record view specifically for new logo opportunities. This ensures sales users only see the fields relevant to their process, which makes data entry faster and keeps the interface clean. Page layouts are the standard tool for managing field visibility within record details in Lightning record pages.

Incorrect Options Explanations:

❌ Option A: Record Detail Component.
The Record Detail component in a Lightning page acts as the container that displays record details, but it does not control which fields show up. It simply renders whatever is configured on the page layout. If you place the Record Detail component on a Lightning record page, it pulls its field configuration from the assigned page layout. Therefore, this component is not the place where you configure fields.

❌ Option B: Custom Lightning Component.
Creating a custom Lightning component would allow developers to design highly specific field displays, but this is unnecessary and overly complex for the requirement. Salesforce already provides point-and-click control through page layouts. Using a custom Lightning component would introduce unnecessary development work and complexity when page layouts can solve the problem directly.

❌ Option C: Record Types.
Record types control business processes, picklist values, and which page layout is assigned to a record, but they do not themselves define which fields display. A record type may assign a different page layout to sales users for new logo opportunities, but the actual field visibility is still configured at the page layout level. So while record types are related, they are not the tool to directly control fields in the record detail section.

🔗 Reference: Salesforce Help – Customize Page Layouts

✨ Key Takeaway:
If you need to control what fields users see in the record details section, always edit the Page Layout. Record types can assign layouts, and the Record Detail component displays them, but the actual field control comes from the page layout.

Explanation:

🟢 Explanation for Correct Answer A:
Confirming the correct price book is selected on the opportunity is essential because, in Salesforce, an opportunity must be associated with a single price book to determine which products are available for selection. If the wrong price book is selected, or no price book is chosen, the sales reps won’t see the new keyboard product, even if it’s added to Salesforce. The price book defines the list of products and their prices that can be added to the opportunity, so checking this ensures the keyboard is available for selection. This step directly addresses the issue of reps being unable to select the product.

🟢 Explanation for Correct Answer C:
Ensuring the product is associated with the correct price book is critical because a product must be linked to a price book through a price book entry to be available for selection on an opportunity. In Salesforce, a price book entry connects a product to a specific price book with its price details. If the administrator added the keyboard to Salesforce but didn’t create a price book entry for it in the price book used by the opportunity, the reps won’t be able to select it. Verifying this association ensures the product is properly set up for use.

🔴 Explanation for Incorrect Option B:
Making sure the price book is in the company currency is not directly relevant to ensuring the product is available for selection. While currency settings matter in a multi-currency organization for accurate pricing, the issue here is that reps cannot select the product at all. The product’s availability depends on its association with the price book and the opportunity’s price book selection, not the currency of the price book itself. Currency issues might affect pricing display but not the ability to select the product, so this option doesn’t address the problem.

🔴 Explanation for Incorrect Option D:
Verifying the product has a start date entered is not necessary in this scenario. In Salesforce, the standard Product object does not have a “start date” field that controls whether a product can be selected on an opportunity. Instead, a product’s availability depends on its active status and its association with a price book. If the keyboard is marked as active and properly linked to the price book, it should be selectable, making this option irrelevant to the issue.

Reference: For more details on products and price books in Salesforce, see the Salesforce Help Center under “Set Up Products and Price Books” or the “Salesforce Products and Pricebooks”

Explanation:

✅ The correct tool to evaluate the cause of errors is the Debug Log.
When users report errors during their work in the Salesforce interface, these errors are often caused by behind-the-scenes automation such as validation rules, processes, flows, or Apex triggers. The Debug Log is specifically designed to capture detailed, granular information about the execution of database operations, automation, and code. It records the exact error messages, stack traces, and the point in the logic where a failure occurred. This makes it the definitive tool for an administrator to diagnose why reps are encountering errors when they try to update the newly created leads, as it will reveal which specific rule or automation is failing and why.

❌ Option A, Login History, is incorrect.
This tool provides information about user logins, logouts, and authentication attempts (e.g., IP address, browser, time). It is used for auditing user access and troubleshooting login problems, but it provides zero insight into the errors occurring during data processing or automation within the application.

❌ Option C, Setup Audit Trail, is incorrect.
This is an administrative audit log that tracks changes made to your org's configuration and setup (e.g., who changed a field or modified a page layout). It is invaluable for tracking what was changed and by whom, but it does not monitor real-time user activity or log errors encountered by users during their daily work.

❌ Option D, Record History, is incorrect.
This refers to the tracked field history on individual records. It shows how the data on a specific record has changed over time and who changed it. While useful for auditing data modifications, it does not capture error messages or the underlying logic failures that cause those errors when a user tries to save a record.

Reference:
The use of Debug Logs is a primary method for troubleshooting system errors and is a core skill for any advanced Administrator. It is covered extensively in the Salesforce documentation on monitoring and debugging, which is a key domain for the Platform Administrator II exam.

Explanation:

Summary 📈
To diagnose why Lightning pages are slow, the administrator should use the built-in analysis tool available in the Lightning App Builder. This tool, accessed by clicking the Analyze button, is specifically designed to evaluate a page's performance and provide a score, along with actionable recommendations for improvement. This is the most direct and effective way to identify performance bottlenecks.

Detailed Explanation

B. Click Analyze from the Lightning App Builder toolbar. (Correct)
This is the correct action to take. The Lightning App Builder includes a Page Analysis feature specifically for diagnosing performance issues. When you click the Analyze button from the toolbar, the tool assesses the components on the page, the number of fields, and the overall metadata to provide a predicted page load time. It then gives you a performance score and lists a series of best practices and suggestions, such as reducing the number of fields or moving complex components to a secondary tab, to help you improve the user experience. This feature is the most efficient and straightforward way for an administrator to diagnose the problem.

A. Check the debug logs found in the Environment section of Setup. (Incorrect)
Debug logs are primarily used for tracking server-side code execution, such as Apex, API calls, and system processes. While they can help a developer find performance issues in custom code, they do not provide a comprehensive analysis of the full page load experience, which includes client-side rendering and network latency. Therefore, they are not the best tool for an administrator to diagnose a slow-loading Lightning page.

C. Review the debug logs from the Developer Console. (Incorrect)
The Developer Console is a powerful integrated development environment for developers to write, debug, and test code. While it contains tools to review debug logs and execute code, it is not the primary tool for analyzing the overall performance of a Lightning page from a user experience perspective. It focuses more on the back-end, server-side actions, not the client-side load.

D. Use the Apex debugger while loading a customer record. (Incorrect)
The Apex debugger is a specialized tool for developers to step through Apex code line-by-line to identify bugs or performance issues within the code itself. It is a powerful tool for developers but is entirely focused on server-side code execution and is not designed to diagnose the broader performance problems of a Lightning page, which often stem from the number and complexity of its components.

Reference:
For more detailed information on analyzing Lightning page performance, you can refer to the official Salesforce documentation: Analyze Your Lightning Page Performance

Explanation:

Correct Option Explanation

✅ Option C: Account Teams.
Account Teams are the best way to give additional users access to an account when an organization is using a private sharing model. With an account team, the account owner or administrator can manually add specific users (such as an engineer) to an account and grant them predefined levels of access, such as Read Only or Read/Write, not only to the account itself but also optionally to related records like opportunities and cases. This allows fine-grained, record-level access without changing the overall security model. For AW Computing, this ensures the engineer only gets access to the accounts they are explicitly added to and does not receive unnecessary access to other accounts. This balances collaboration with data security.

Incorrect Options Explanations

❌ Option A: Permission Set.
Permission sets grant object-level and field-level permissions, but they do not provide access to specific records. For example, a permission set might allow an engineer to read all Accounts, but in a private sharing model, that does not override record ownership or sharing rules. So while permission sets are useful for adding functional permissions, they cannot solve the need for granting access to just one account record.

❌ Option B: Permission Set Group.
A permission set group simply bundles multiple permission sets together for easier assignment. Just like a single permission set, it controls object-level and field-level access, not record-level access. Assigning a permission set group to the engineer would give them broader permissions across the system, which does not meet the requirement of granting access to a single account securely.

❌ Option D: Custom Profile.
A profile controls baseline object, field, and system permissions for a group of users, but it also does not override record-level sharing. If the sharing model for accounts is private, a profile cannot grant an engineer access to specific account records. Changing a profile would instead affect all users assigned to it, which could unintentionally broaden access and violate data security principles. Therefore, profiles are not an appropriate solution here.

🔗 Reference: Salesforce Help – Account Teams

✨ Key Takeaway: In a private sharing model, use Account Teams to grant specific users (like engineers) access to a particular account while keeping overall data secure.

Explanation:

Explanation for Correct Answer D: ✅
The issue where users are taken to a login screen and prompted for additional verification when exporting a report is caused by the exporting feature being configured to require a high assurance session in Salesforce. A high assurance session requires stronger authentication, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) or a verification code, to perform sensitive actions like exporting reports, which could contain confidential data. If the users’ current session does not meet the high assurance level, Salesforce prompts them for additional verification to ensure security. This is a common setting in organizations to protect sensitive data during exports.

Explanation for Incorrect Option A:
Updating the browser to the latest version is not likely the cause of users being prompted for additional verification when exporting a report. While an outdated browser might cause compatibility issues with Salesforce’s interface, the specific issue of being redirected to a login screen for verification points to a security setting, not a browser problem. Salesforce’s requirement for high assurance sessions is independent of browser versions, so this option doesn’t address the issue.

Explanation for Incorrect Option B:
Being logged into an insecure network is not the direct cause of the additional verification prompt when exporting a report. Salesforce does not typically detect the network’s security status to trigger verification prompts. Instead, the prompt for additional verification is tied to the organization’s security settings, such as requiring a high assurance session for exporting reports. Network security might affect general login policies, but it’s not specific to the report export issue described.

Explanation for Incorrect Option C:
The users’ profile missing the Export Reports permission is not the cause of this issue. If users lacked the “Export Reports” permission, they would be unable to initiate the export process entirely, and Salesforce would display an error or restrict access to the export option. Since the users can run reports and start the export but are prompted for verification, the issue is related to session security requirements, not a missing profile permission.

Reference:
For more information on session security and high assurance requirements, see the Salesforce Help Center under “Session Security Settings” or the “Identity Verification”