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.CBR600 Apply Critical Thinking 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 plantiff 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.In this first step, you will prepare to respond to your boss’s request for an analysis of a problem in your organization. You realize that this will require careful thinking. So, you take some time to review the process and to engage in Critical Thinking and Analysis.When you have completed the critical thinking exercises, you will move on to the next step: identifying the problem.Now that you’re prepared to think critically, it’s time to analyze the situation. Remember the direction from your CEO is to analyze the situation and advise on the two lawsuits.Now that you have some understanding of the nature of the breach and the parties involved, it’s time to gather and analyze information. The Problem Analysis resources will further aid your analysis and development of the third section of your paper. Outline the points that you want to make in Section 3: Analysis of the Information of your paper, and draft that section.In the following step, you will consider other viewpoints, conclusions, and solutions. Suggested area to focus on is to determine if a conflict of interest would exist in handling the two cases that might be related, and advise how to proceed.Outline the points that you want to make in the first two sections of your paper (introduction, explanation) and draft those sections.Once you have completed your analysis of the incident, the next step is to analyze alternative viewpoints, conclusions, and solutions. To do this you will need to apply Ethical Decision-Making and Reasoning. Also highly recommended, Randolph Pherson's "The Five Habits of the Master Thinker," a paper written for intelligence analysts, but applicable to all analytical thinking and reasoning. Outline the points that you want to make in Section 4: Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, or Solutions of your paper, and draft that section. When you are finished, move to the next step, which involves developing conclusions.You considered alternative viewpoints in the last step. Now you’re ready to develop your personal conclusions and suggest remedies so that your boss is well-equipped to brief her leadership about the situation.Remember, you may need to consult outside references but this is not a research paper. It is more investigative in nature about the facts of the case. Please cite outside sources carefully.Now, outline your argument and draft Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations, the final sections. Your boss is expecting to receive a concise, focused paper to prepare her for further meetings. Stay to the main points, although you may have more facts to answer any questions. You will submit your paper in the final step.

Your state has a forthcoming referendum (a vote to adopt a enact a new law) concerning no smoking in public places including bars and restaurants. Do you agree with this referendum Yes or No?  You should give specific reasons for why you agree or disagree with the referendum.

This is the github for the lab >> https://github.com/seed-labs/seed-labsPlease use AWS for this lab >> https://github.com/seed-labs/seed-labs/blob/master...