Project #154177 - Case Study

General Tutors

Subject General
Due By (Pacific Time) 11/19/2016 01:00 pm


In this project, you will address a case study that intentionally does not give you enough detail for you to quickly resolve the issue. This is meant to enable you to use the processes of critical thinking to reach conclusions. Given the gaps in information provided to you, you will identify what you know, what you don’t know, and what questions you need to ask as you start your investigation of the facts of the case. The process is designed to encourage clear thinking and to help you to identify potential cognitive traps that could derail well-reasoned conclusions.






Start Here Video Transcript


Early one morning at work, CEO Alice Johnson asks if you have a moment to chat. I need your expertise and advice on a complicated situation for the company regarding an international hacking lawsuit. In her office, Alice explains that CyberTech is serving as the cyber forensics consultant for a law firm handling the suit from a 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. 


The OPM hack compromised background information on millions of workers. In a related case Anomalous, a non-US gray hat hacking group suspected in the OPM breach case, is claiming that US-based Equation Set attempted to hack its facilities. So we have a non-US and a US set of test hacker groups involved. With Anomalous, the non-US group, being a client defendant in one case against Equation Set, the US group, and as a suspect in the OPM breach. 


But Alice then outlines why the case is problematic. Along with the OPM victims, CyberTech represents clients from some of the OPM breach suspect companies in unrelated cases, which could appear to be a conflict of interest. This could affect the way our company is perceived by others. We need to maintain our image as an unbiased cyber security consultant. 


Should CyberTech remain on both the OPM breach investigation and the overseas case at the same time? Or should we drop one of the cases? Apply your critical thinking and analytical skills to figure out what happened what we know and don't know, and how the company might remedy this situation. I'd like a paper by the end of the week with your recommendations.




Format Requirements


You will write a short paper (no more than 1,500 words, excluding the cover page and references, as necessary) that analyzes the claims in the case and provides suggestions for remedying the situation. 


Structure your paper with these major headings:


1. Introduction 


2. Explanation of the Issue 


3. Analysis of the Information


4. Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, or Solutions


5. Personal Conclusion and Suggestions for Remedying the Situation


6. Conclusion




Follow these guidelines: 


● Cite at least one reputable outside resource related to the topic to support your conclusion or proposed remedy.


● Employ APA style for format and citation guidance.


● Include a cover sheet with your name, course section, date




Best Practices for a Paper


ï‚· An effective introduction grabs the reader’s attention and sets the tone and direction for the rest of the paper. The introduction should give the reader a clear idea of what will follow. Supporting paragraphs move the reader from the general introduction to the more specific aspects of your analysis.  ï‚· The body paragraphs show how the information you are providing supports and relates to your thinking. Even though you've provided the title for each section, paragraphs across and within sections need to effectively transition from one to the next.


ï‚· Each paragraph should include a topic sentence, which contains the main point of the paragraph.


ï‚· The conclusion brings to a close what you have presented in your paper. You have moved the reader from the general introduction (“The intent of this paper is to critically analyze…) to the specific supporting paragraphs, and now to the conclusion, which briefly summarizes the issue or intent and restates the main points of your analysis (“detailed analysis of the issue of … resulted in conclusions that indicate… and suggest proposed decisions to…”).



out of 1971 reviews

out of 766 reviews

out of 1164 reviews

out of 721 reviews

out of 1600 reviews

out of 770 reviews

out of 766 reviews

out of 680 reviews