Last reviewed
Correct answer: A. Generated code can look confident and well-formatted while still containing subtle bugs
Explanation
Fluent output and correct output come out of the same process, so one is no evidence of the other. Generated code arrives formatted, commented, plausibly named, and free of the hedging a human writes when unsure. It can still be off by one, swallow an exception the caller needed, or handle the happy path and nothing else. Those are precisely the defects that survive a skim, which is why the pull request habit transfers intact: read what the code does, not how it reads, and check the edge case that bit this codebase last time.
The wrong options all assume that authorship changes the standard, and it does not. Nothing about a suggestion being machine-written makes it safe, makes review optional, or makes tests unnecessary. If anything the opposite holds, because code you did not write is code whose assumptions you never held in your head. Reviewing a colleague's pull request is partly checking the code and partly reconstructing their reasoning. Here there is no reasoning to reconstruct, so the checking carries the whole load.
Sources
“While Copilot is very powerful, it is still a tool capable of making mistakes, and you should always validate the code it suggests.”
“Even the most advanced language models, like Claude, can sometimes generate text that is factually incorrect or inconsistent with the given context.”
“Consider not just the functionality and security of the suggested code, but also the readability and maintainability of the code moving forward.”
Practise 3 questions on this topic
Take Prompt Engineering for Code — Timed Test (3 questions) — scored instantly, explanation for every question, no login.