Explanation:

1️⃣ SOSL is faster for text searches (C)

SOSL searches across multiple objects and fields in a single query, making it more efficient for text-based searches.
It scans indexed fields quickly, making it ideal for searching Name, Description, and Comments fields in large datasets.
Best for keyword searches, such as finding records containing a specific phrase.

2️⃣ SOQL is able to return more records (D)

SOQL retrieves a larger result set, allowing up to 50,000 records per query, while SOSL returns only the first 200 records per object.
SOQL is best when searching structured data with filtering, such as retrieving Accounts based on specific criteria.
Ideal for querying specific fields from a single object, rather than searching text across multiple objects.

Explanation:

The issue here is that the Visualforce page is exceeding the View State limit because it's trying to display a very large dataset (10,000+ Container__c records). To fix this efficiently, the developer should:

✅ Use a StandardSetController to paginate the data.

This approach:

Loads and displays a subset of records at a time (e.g., 50 per page)
Keeps the view state small and manageable
Is the most declarative and Salesforce-recommended way to paginate in Visualforce

🔍 Example:

public with sharing class ContainerPaginationController {
public ApexPages.StandardSetController setCon {
get {
if (setCon == null) {
setCon = new ApexPages.StandardSetController(
[SELECT Id, Name FROM Container__c WHERE Account__c = :ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('id')]
);
setCon.setPageSize(50);
}
return setCon;
}
set;
}

public List getContainers() {
return (List) setCon.getRecords();
}
}

❌ Why other options are less appropriate:

A. JavaScript Remoting with SOQL OFFSET
❌ OFFSET is inefficient at large scale (10,000+ records)
Also requires custom JavaScript and Apex code

C. OffsetController
❌ Not a standard Salesforce controller — likely refers to a custom implementation, which is more complex and error-prone

D. Lazy loading and transient List
❌ transient helps reduce view state, but by itself won’t fix the issue
Lazy loading requires custom logic, still won't handle paging automatically

Explanation:

Let's trace the execution steps when an Account is inserted with an initial count value of zero, considering the specified trigger and workflow rule:

Initial Insert: An Account record is created with count = 0.

before insert trigger: (No before insert trigger is mentioned in the problem, so this step is skipped).

System Validation / Validation Rules: (No impact on count field here).

Record saved to database (not yet committed): At this point, the count is still 0.

after insert trigger: (No after insert trigger is mentioned, so this step is skipped).

Workflow Rules: The workflow rule is configured to increment the count field every time an Account is created or updated.

Since the Account was just created, the workflow rule executes.
The workflow rule's field update action increments count.
count becomes 0 + 1 = 1.
Workflow Field Update - Recursive Save: When a workflow rule performs a field update, it effectively triggers a mini-save operation to apply that change to the database. This mini-save follows a subset of the order of execution, specifically:

before update trigger fires: The trigger you wrote on the Account object for the before update event is invoked.
This trigger increments the count field.
count becomes 1 + 1 = 2.
Validation Rules re-evaluate (no impact here).
The record is saved to the database again.
after update trigger (not present in this scenario).
Workflow rules are NOT re-evaluated: The problem explicitly states that "The field update in the workflow rule is configured to not re-evaluate workflow rules." This is crucial, as it prevents an infinite loop between the workflow rule and itself.
Final Commit: The transaction completes, and the record is committed to the database with its final value.

Therefore, the final value of the count field will be 2.

Explanation:

Here are the two correct use cases for executing Anonymous Apex:

Scheduling an Apex Class (B):

Anonymous Apex can schedule jobs using System.schedule().

Example:

System.schedule('Daily Update', '0 0 12 * * ?', new MyScheduledClass());

Running Batch Apex (C):

Anonymous Apex can launch batch jobs with Database.executeBatch().

Example:

Database.executeBatch(new UpdateContactsBatch(), 200);

Why Not the Others?

A. Deleting 15,000 Accounts in a single transaction:
Governor limit violation: Anonymous Apex has a 10,000-record DML limit. Use Batch Apex instead.

D. Adding unit test coverage:
Tests must be in test classes (@isTest). Anonymous Apex doesn’t count toward coverage.

Explanation:

To get access to the standard price book in a test class that covers an OpportunityLineItem trigger, the developer should use Test.getStandardPricebookId().

Why C is correct:

Test.getStandardPricebookId() is a specific Apex method designed to retrieve the ID of the standard price book within a test context. This allows developers to associate products with standard prices to opportunity line items for testing purposes, even when SeeAllData=false.

Why other options are incorrect:

A. Use Test.loadData() and a static resource to load a standard price book. Test.loadData() is used to load custom object data from static resources. It cannot be used to load or create standard price book records.
B. Use @TestVisible to allow the test method to see the standard price book. @TestVisible is an annotation used to allow test methods to access private or protected members of a class. It does not provide access to org data like the standard price book.
D. Use @IsTest(SeeAllData=True) and delete the existing standard price book. While @IsTest(SeeAllData=True) would allow access to existing org data, it's generally discouraged as a best practice due to data dependency issues. More importantly, you cannot delete the standard price book in a Salesforce org.