Case Study Windows 11 and CyberDataDesignCo

Q1 Case study problem statements

a) Overview and Problem Statement

This case study certainly examines CyberDataDesignCo's (CDDC) challenges which is in adopting the Windows 11. While Microsoft likely requires certain specific CPU and security features for their Windows 11 support, many of CDDC's existing PCs don't meet these requirements. Upgrading all PCs is expensive, and Sandra Hemshaw, the managing director certainly then doubts the necessity. The case then further highlights the need for CDDC to balance the cost with the security concerns while evaluating the upgrade.

b) General Approach to Evaluating Statements

When furthermore encountering the statements, a critical thinking approach likely then involves considering several of the factors:

Source Credibility: Evaluate the person making the statement. Are they an expert in this particular field? Do they have a vested interest in likely promoting a particular viewpoint?
Evidence: Look for the evidence to support the claim. Are there other reliable sources (e.g., research papers, official documentation) that back it up?

Logical Reasoning: Does the statement make some logical sense? Does it contradict the established knowledge or the best practices?

c) Questions for Microsoft Sales Representative

[CT1] Compatibility with Older CPUs: "Several articles do mention successful installations of the Windows 11 on the CPUs which is older than the officially supported models. Can one clarify Microsoft's has stance on the compatibility with these specific configurations?" (This question then tactfully acknowledges the user experiences while then seeking some official clarification.)

[CT2] Waiting Period for New OS: "You mentioned the importance of the Windows 11 system stability. Does the Microsoft typically recommend waiting a period after a new OS release for their initial bug fixes which is before the widespread adoption?" (This question certainly acknowledges the importance of the stability while confirming the best practices for new OS adoption.)

Q2 Fallacies in the Case Study

F1: Appeal to Fear (Ad Misericordiam):

This fallacy certainly relies on creating fear to manipulate someone's decision. The colleague suggests dire consequences (data breaches, crashes, job losses) if they install the Windows 11 on unsupported PCsPCs i.e. without providing clear evidence for the likelihood of these outcomes.

F2: Bandwagon Fallacy:

Department Manager 1 claims "real tech companies" wouldn't force further upgrades which is implying Microsoft isn't a real tech company. This fallacy assumes that because many of the companies are likely considering an alternative (Linux), it must then be the superior choice which further works in ignoring the individual needs and other proper evaluation.

F3: Hasty Generalization:

Department Manager 2 likely states that 80% of the companies are considering Linux which is implying it's the best option for CDDC. This fallacy then generalizes from a limited sample (80% of the companies in their industry) without even considering the CDDC's specific needs and also the compatibility with Linux software.

F4: False Analogy:

Employee 1 certainly compares a YouTube outage to a potential Windows 11 upgrade issue. This is likely to be a false analogy because a service outage is unrelated to the software upgrades on certain individual devices.

F5: Straw Man Fallacy:

Employee 2 further then attacks a misinformed statement which is about "BRT version 1.853" (which doesn't exist) to then discredit the entire argument for furthermore needing new hardware for the Windows 11. This fallacy misrepresents the opponent's argument to then make it easier to attack.

Q3 Analyzing Arguments in the Case Study

a) Identifying Argument Types:

A1 (Sandra Hemshaw): Inductive

A2 (Department Manager 3): Inductive

b) Evaluating Arguments:

A1 (Sandra Hemshaw - Inductive - Weak and Uncogent):

Sandra reasons that because another software company's upgrade requirement likely then turned out to be false, Microsoft might further change theirs. This is a weak inductive argument. There's no specific evidence which will suggest Microsoft will change their requirements.

A2 (Department Manager 3 - Inductive - Weak and Uncogent):

Department Manager 3 likely argues that because Microsoft is a well-established company and with their claim about needing new hardware for Windows 11 should then be believed. This is another weak inductive argument. Age alone doesn't even guarantee the truthfulness of a statement. Companies can also make some random mistakes and Microsoft's requirements might then be legitimate.

Q5 Ethical Issues in the IT Manager's Actions

a.Core Ethical Value Not Upheld: Honesty

Based on the ACS Code of Professional Conduct, the core ethical value the IT manager did not uphold is Honesty. The in-depth definition on the ACS website furthermore states that honesty includes being truthful and henceforth being accurate in representing certain technical skills and knowledge.

b) Breaches of Honesty and How to Prevent Them

Misrepresenting Recommendation: The IT manager misinterpreted or deliberately concealed the committee's recommendations which is leading to a delay in purchasing new PCs.
To Prevent: The IT manager should have accurately communicated to the committee's recommendation to Sandra and has then ensured a clear understanding.

Ignoring Security Concerns: The IT manager had certainly prioritized cost-saving by installing Windows 11 on the unsupported hardware by exposing the company to security risks.
To Prevent: The IT manager should have prioritized the cybersecurity by transparently communicating the risks and henceforth then advocating for the recommended solution (purchasing new PCs) or then exploring alternative, secure options.

To Prevent: The IT manager should have accurately communicated to the committee's recommendation to Sandra and has then ensured a clear understanding.
Ignoring Security Concerns: The IT manager had certainly prioritized cost-saving by installing Windows 11 on the unsupported hardware by exposing the company to security risks.
To Prevent: The IT manager should have prioritized the cybersecurity by transparently communicating the risks and henceforth then advocating for the recommended solution (purchasing new PCs) or then exploring alternative, secure options.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank