End of Day USA time

Posted: January 20th, 2023

DISCUSSION:
Should be between 250-to-300 words.
DUE DATE: Saturday End of Day USA time ( 5 days from now)
Reply: I need 2 replies. Reply is nothing but just additional 100-150 words on same topic but as a different paragraph. (I won’t send any replies to you and then you send info on that. NO)
DUE DATE: Saturday End of Day USA time (5 days from now)
Topic:
After reading the below article this week, please answer the following two questions with references:

What are some of the potential risks involved with cloud computing?
Does the research and model in this article propose a viable solution to cloud-based risk management?

Article:
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/9/195
RESEARCH:
Need this research paper by Monday USA time. (7 days from now).
5 pages excluding references and cover page. Follow APA 7 format and citations.
TOPIC:
Please address the following in a properly formatted research paper:

Do you think that ISO 27001 standard would work well in the organization that you currently or previously have worked for? If you are currently using ISO 27001 as an ISMS framework, analyze its effectiveness as you perceive in the organization.
Are there other frameworks mentioned has been discussed in the article that might be more effective?
Has any other research you uncover suggest there are better frameworks to use for addressing risks?

Your paper should meet the following requirements:

Be approximately 5 pages in length, not including the required cover page and reference page.
Follow APA 7 guidelines. Your paper should include an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion.
Support your answers with the readings from the course and at least two scholarly journal articles to support your positions, claims, and observations, in addition to your textbook.

Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.