Q-39: negative formulation, should rephrase to be positive

[gernotstarke]

instead of choosing the two most difficult to measure properties, let's ask for the three that can be measured best.

[gernotstarke]

@rhoadesre would be nice if you could have a look at Q-39 to verify it has gotten better :-)

[gernotstarke]

(ahm - in the ascidoc version, I forgot to mention that)

[rhoadesre]

I changed the formulation slightly. The positive formulation works well.

[rhoadesre]

I also changed the statement regarding the number of correct answers.
Refer to issue #70

[rhoadesre]

As to the content, I would question whether or not security can be reliably tested or not. I'm not an expert in this area, but aren't there quantitative metrics to measure security?

[gernotstarke]

Roger, there's no commit with your changes in the asciidoc branch...

[rhoadesre]

Patience. I'm still working on it. :-)

[rhoadesre]

Should be pushed and committed now. Let me know if I did this correctly.

[gernotstarke]

slightly :-)
you did more than fixing this issue :-)

[gernotstarke]

hhm - you changed the number of answer-options to TWO, but it's supposed to be THREE!!

It was two with the negative formulation, therefore it has to be three now (with 5 options to select from).

[gernotstarke]

and - btw: IF we change to the TWO best fitting answers, we needed to change the number of {y} answers in the first column too.

I suggest to leave it with THREE required answers

[rhoadesre]

Now I'm really confused. The statement was "Select the TWO ... answers" and I thought I changed it to "Select the Three .. changes.". In my version, it states "Select the THREE answers". And there are three answers (in my version) marked with a "y". Very confusing.