Which statement about error detection methods is most accurate?

Which statement about error detection methods is most accurate?

• A. Checksums alone guarantee data integrity during transmission.
• B. Parity detects multi-bit errors.
• C. CRC uses polynomial division to detect errors across blocks.
• D. Data integrity is not relevant for transmission.

Answer: (C)

Crc relies on polynomial division to detect errors across blocks. In this scheme, the data is treated as a binary polynomial and divided by a chosen generator polynomial; the remainder becomes the code (the CRC) that’s sent with the data. When the full block arrives, the receiver performs the same division on the data plus the CRC. If there are no errors, the division leaves a zero remainder, so the block passes cleanly. If errors occur, the remainder will typically be nonzero, making many error patterns detectable. This approach is powerful because it catches a wide class of errors, especially burst errors that affect consecutive bits, and it can detect most common corruption patterns that simple methods miss. It’s more robust than just using a simple checksum or parity, which have limitations: a parity bit often detects single-bit errors but can miss even numbers of bit flips; a basic checksum improves reliability but doesn’t guarantee detection of all error patterns. The statement that data integrity isn’t relevant for transmission is plainly incorrect, since the whole purpose of these methods is to ensure the data received matches what was sent.

Crc relies on polynomial division to detect errors across blocks. In this scheme, the data is treated as a binary polynomial and divided by a chosen generator polynomial; the remainder becomes the code (the CRC) that’s sent with the data. When the full block arrives, the receiver performs the same division on the data plus the CRC. If there are no errors, the division leaves a zero remainder, so the block passes cleanly. If errors occur, the remainder will typically be nonzero, making many error patterns detectable.

This approach is powerful because it catches a wide class of errors, especially burst errors that affect consecutive bits, and it can detect most common corruption patterns that simple methods miss. It’s more robust than just using a simple checksum or parity, which have limitations: a parity bit often detects single-bit errors but can miss even numbers of bit flips; a basic checksum improves reliability but doesn’t guarantee detection of all error patterns. The statement that data integrity isn’t relevant for transmission is plainly incorrect, since the whole purpose of these methods is to ensure the data received matches what was sent.