The correct answers are A and C because both use named exports for foo and bar.
A module can export multiple values by name:
export { foo, bar };
This allows another file to import them like this:
import { foo, bar } from ' ./utils.js ' ;
Option A is correct because it defines both functions locally and exports both of them as named exports.
const foo = () = > { return ' foo ' ; };
const bar = () = > { return ' bar ' ; };
export { foo, bar };
Option C is also correct after correcting the typing issue so that both foo and bar are imported first:
import { foo, bar } from " ./helpers/utils.js " ;
export { foo, bar };
This is called re-exporting. The module imports foo and bar from another module, then exports them again from utils.js.
Option B is not the best answer for named access because it exports one default object:
export default { foo, bar };
That would require a default import first:
import utils from ' ./utils.js ' ;
utils.foo();
utils.bar();
It does not directly support named imports in the same way as:
import { foo, bar } from ' ./utils.js ' ;
Option D exports a default class. Its foo() and bar() are class instance methods, not named exported functions.
It would require usage like:
import Utils from ' ./utils.js ' ;
const utils = new Utils();
utils.foo();
utils.bar();
So for direct multiple function exports, the correct implementations are A and C .