WGU D265 Task 1: Thinking Critically| Passed on First
Attempt |Latest Update with Complete Solution
Please provide the labeled premise(s) and conclusion
of an argument from your selected case study below.
Premise(s) and
Conclusion
Review Section 1, Lesson 2 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Premise 1: The ransomware attack that occurred last year was attributed to phishing.
Premise 2: The incidence of phishing attacks has more than doubled over the past five years.
Premise 3: Implementing simulations to train employees can decrease the likelihood of a
successful phishing attempt by 85%.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is advisable to employ phishing simulations as a training method for
employees.
In the box below, please describe whether the
argument is deductive or inductive.
Deductive/
Inductive
Review Section 1, Lesson 4 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Maria's argument advocating for the implementation of proper training to mitigate the risks of
future cyber-attacks is inductive in nature. This inductive reasoning is evident as she
formulates a general conclusion based on specific evidence and observed trends. She notes that
the company's previous ransomware incident was precipitated by a phishing attack, a
particular event, and subsequently references a cybersecurity report indicating an increase in
phishing attacks. Additionally, she cites a firm's report demonstrating that simulation training
PAGE 1
, can reduce the success rate of phishing attacks by 85%. Based on these observations, she
concludes that the adoption of phishing simulation training is likely to diminish the risk of
future attacks.
In the box below, please describe the argument.
For a deductive argument, explain whether it is valid or
invalid.
Validity/
Strength For an inductive argument, explain whether it is strong
or weak.
Review Section 1, Lesson 4 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Maria's argument exhibits several weaknesses. She asserts that her initial source is credible
because it aligns with her preexisting belief that phishing attacks are increasing, thereby
demonstrating confirmation bias and a lack of objectivity. The second source she references,
which claims an 85% reduction in successful phishing attacks, originates from a company that
provides simulation training. This presents a conflict of interest, rendering the evidence less
credible without independent verification.
Please provide a map of the argument in the box
below. Provide numbered circles to identify the
propositions (premises and conclusion) and arrows to
show support.
Map
See Section 4, Lesson 4 in the course of study to
understand argument mapping and see examples.
See “How To Create/Draw an Argument Map” in the
Supporting Document section.
PAGE 2
Attempt |Latest Update with Complete Solution
Please provide the labeled premise(s) and conclusion
of an argument from your selected case study below.
Premise(s) and
Conclusion
Review Section 1, Lesson 2 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Premise 1: The ransomware attack that occurred last year was attributed to phishing.
Premise 2: The incidence of phishing attacks has more than doubled over the past five years.
Premise 3: Implementing simulations to train employees can decrease the likelihood of a
successful phishing attempt by 85%.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is advisable to employ phishing simulations as a training method for
employees.
In the box below, please describe whether the
argument is deductive or inductive.
Deductive/
Inductive
Review Section 1, Lesson 4 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Maria's argument advocating for the implementation of proper training to mitigate the risks of
future cyber-attacks is inductive in nature. This inductive reasoning is evident as she
formulates a general conclusion based on specific evidence and observed trends. She notes that
the company's previous ransomware incident was precipitated by a phishing attack, a
particular event, and subsequently references a cybersecurity report indicating an increase in
phishing attacks. Additionally, she cites a firm's report demonstrating that simulation training
PAGE 1
, can reduce the success rate of phishing attacks by 85%. Based on these observations, she
concludes that the adoption of phishing simulation training is likely to diminish the risk of
future attacks.
In the box below, please describe the argument.
For a deductive argument, explain whether it is valid or
invalid.
Validity/
Strength For an inductive argument, explain whether it is strong
or weak.
Review Section 1, Lesson 4 in the course for help with
this task aspect.
Maria's argument exhibits several weaknesses. She asserts that her initial source is credible
because it aligns with her preexisting belief that phishing attacks are increasing, thereby
demonstrating confirmation bias and a lack of objectivity. The second source she references,
which claims an 85% reduction in successful phishing attacks, originates from a company that
provides simulation training. This presents a conflict of interest, rendering the evidence less
credible without independent verification.
Please provide a map of the argument in the box
below. Provide numbered circles to identify the
propositions (premises and conclusion) and arrows to
show support.
Map
See Section 4, Lesson 4 in the course of study to
understand argument mapping and see examples.
See “How To Create/Draw an Argument Map” in the
Supporting Document section.
PAGE 2
