Fundamentally, radiation testing an electronic component is very similar to radiation testing a larger module or unit like a circuit card assembly $($CCA$)$; after all, the essence of what you're doing is the same $$ sticking something under a radiation beam and waiting until the beam delivers enough fluence $($particles per square cm$)$ to the unit under test. Since fully irradiating a larger module or unit irradiates all its constituent components, does it then follow that it is generally a better investment of time and money to beam test a large module or unit as opposed to individually testing all of the components within that module or unit? Select all that apply.

Question $23$ options:

Yes, module or unit testing provides data just as good as component testing at a much lower cost since you're able to effectively test many components at once, so whenever possible it's best to skip the component testing and go directly to the higher$-$order systems testing.

Yes, unless one has $($near$-)$ infinite resources it will almost always be best to maximize the use of those resources by testing as large a module or unit subsystem as can fit under the radiation beam.

Module or unit testing can be a useful complement to component testing, but you don't want to solely conduct module or unit testing in lieu of component testing as it is less precise at determining system failure modes and possible mitigations.

No$,$ unless radiation testing is conducted on every single component within the system you won't be able to say with any statistical certainty that the system as a whole will be able to perform adequately in the presence of hostile radiation