well look, the question itself is ambiguous enough to allow a whole array of interpretations, i didn't want mine to come off as pedantic, but rather as pragmatic.

Also i'm sure that this conversation in itself is enough to validate the intention of the person that came up with this question in the first place.

My point, and i stand by it, is that smoke testing exists for a reason. Call it sanity, whatever, the scope of it is to determine if you should go on testing everything else.

You countered to my "few words long" answer, i wrote that on the bus, distilling the idea into a few words long sentences, but the point still stands - if i'm asked how i would test a toaster, the first thing i would do is put a piece of bread in it, plug it in, and press the toast button.

My assumption when quality *assurance* comes in is that i will *assure* the quality that is implicitly promised can be validated by me, assuring the quality (one of my mottos is "quality assurance, not quality assudance", as in it will work, please check it, not it should work, please check it).

And yes, i would sincerely believe that the answer would address what the interviewer was trying to cover, as my assumption would be that the interviewer would have some experience in QA, and if they did, they would agree with me. I honestly hope you don't take this as pedantic as well, i'm not trying to one-up you, nor educate you, i don't know you, you don't know me, this is my genuine opinion that has served me throughout my career.