MENU
Which of the following evidences are the collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about the malicious activity/person?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium GISP Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
30 comments · newest first
VA
Val
10 months ago
Interesting, I never thought about circumstantial evidence like that!
CH
Cheryll
11 months ago
I always thought D was the answer, but now I’m not so sure.
MA
Marica
11 months ago
Wait, are we sure it’s not C? Direct evidence seems more reliable.
MA
Malinda
11 months ago
I disagree, I’d go with A, corroborating evidence is stronger.
DE
Desiree
11 months ago
Definitely think it's B, circumstantial evidence is key.
KA
Katie
11 months ago
Incontrovertible sounds strong, but I don't think it fits the definition of what we're looking for here. I lean towards Circumstantial too.
JO
Jospeh
12 months ago
I feel like I've seen a question like this before, and I think it was about how Circumstantial evidence can build a case.
BE
Benton
12 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about Direct evidence being more straightforward. Maybe that's the answer?
RO
Royal
12 months ago
I think the answer might be B, Circumstantial, because those are the facts that can lead to conclusions about someone's actions, right?
GA
Gail
12 months ago
I'm a little confused by the wording of the question. Are they asking about the specific type of evidence that can be used to infer a conclusion about malicious activity? I'll need to re-read this a few times to make sure I understand.
AR
Arlette
1 year ago
Okay, let me break this down. Corroborating evidence supports or confirms other evidence, circumstantial evidence implies a conclusion, direct evidence directly proves something, and incontrovertible evidence is undisputable. I think I've got this!
NO
Noemi
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the types of evidence used in investigations. I'm pretty confident I can identify the correct answer.
KI
Kina
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the differences between the answer choices here. I'll need to think through the definitions of each type of evidence carefully.
CH
Cherrie
1 year ago
I'm not totally confident, but I think option B, order processing, is the correct answer here. That seems to be the activity that matches the description in the question.
CH
Chi
1 year ago
Two-factor authentication is a good security measure, but I don't think it's the best methodology for managing access rights on its own. I'll need to consider that in the broader context.
LE
Leonard
2 years ago
I'm going with B) Circumstantial. It's like a game of Connect the Dots, but with shady people instead of pictures.
SU
Sunshine
2 years ago
C) Direct evidence is hard to argue against, though.
CH
Cheryll
2 years ago
I think A) Corroborating evidence can also help strengthen the case.
BL
Blythe
2 years ago
I agree, B) Circumstantial evidence can be very telling.
SO
Sophia
2 years ago
I agree with Casandra, circumstantial evidence can be very convincing in some cases.
CA
Casandra
2 years ago
But direct evidence is not always available, circumstantial evidence can still be strong.
ER
Erasmo
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe it is C) Direct.
CA
Caprice
2 years ago
Definitely B) Circumstantial. It's like solving a mystery, you know? Put all the clues together and figure out what really happened.
WE
Werner
2 years ago
Yeah, it's all about piecing together the puzzle to see the bigger picture.
HA
Haydee
2 years ago
I agree, B) Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful in connecting the dots.
CA
Casandra
2 years ago
I think the answer is B) Circumstantial.
JE
Jeff
2 years ago
I think the answer is B) Circumstantial. That's the type of evidence that can be used to draw conclusions about malicious activity.
GL
Gladys
2 years ago
Corroborating evidence can also strengthen a case.
LA
Lashaunda
2 years ago
I think direct evidence would be more convincing though.
EL
Eladia
2 years ago
I agree, circumstantial evidence can be very telling.