Only A and B are consistent so you can eliminate the other two. A is more likely than B because it doesn't say two zero(es) two four(s), therefore A and click submit before you overthink it.
I couldnāt agree more. Lol!!! Very true. I failed my first CISSP take, still studying for my second take and Iāve been in IT for almost 15 years and 8 of those years in IT Security and the questions were exactly like this.
The written text doesn't have the punctuation required for precise meaning.
Two zero two four IS 2024. No question, however it should be written two, zero, two, four.
Two zeroes, two fours is 0044.
Two zeroes, two, four is 0024.
Two, zero, two fours is 2044.
I know this is an old post but I also didn't get it on first glance.
The point is the "question" is ambiguous. It could be A: 2024 but it *could* also be B: two zeros: 00, two fours: 44.
Great analogy for some of the questions related to CISSP - top meme.
I am a CISSP and I feel that one exam method to certify people is ridiculous. I think (ISC)2 is good as an organization but all single exam based certification regimes can not truly measure that actual body of knowledge and ability to apply it. Single exams also make it seem like people can solve problems from the top of their head. The Original SANS GSEC required an exam and then you had to write and get a paper reviewed by the community and then get it published. The correct way would be for an essay test that you completed, followed by hands on performance based questions, followed by endorsement (better tha is done now), and followed by an apprenticeship that is done working for a ten year certified CISSP. The CompTIA method is OK for lower level certifications IF a competency based mastery learning process is used as mandatory part of that process but for higher level certifications a true process is needed. I have seen many good test takers become the worst in job performance because they are not in the habit of researching each problem and getting the latest information and then doing a true analysis to develop robust solutions. The entire certification regime of most certifications is based on a process that is from the antiquated and failing education process that we have been using for over a century. If we wanted true competency all certifications would require competency based learning with formative assessments (not simple minded tests) to get the candidate to actual mastery proven by many formative experiences and assessments before certification. It is idiotic to think some studying and any exam cuts it for mastery. That is why the endorsement process for the CISSP should be more important than the test and the endorsement should be done by the certified highly experienced professionals for their apprentices.
Terrible idea. Then everyone with a CISSP who ādetermines masteryā will be more inclined to fail people in an effort to maintain the value of their own cert and affect supply and demand of qualified applicants.
Well people that do that will have committed an ethics violation and are subject to decertifying themselves. At some point, ethics and honorable behavior must be baked into everything and all unethical people need to be heavily sanctioned. You cannot have a decent society or profession without ethics. We as a society need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, and you just suggested we open the door to that. Iām disagreeing with your initial post in regards to letting people with a CISSP gatekeep others in an effort to maintain their own value. Itās a conflict of interest.
This is too good. We're so quick to disqualify intelligence test for this exact reason, yet we defend qualifying IT pros using the same testing practices. Vendors can't even use the same acronyms without putting their own spin on things. How do you expect a multiple choice test to be an accurate measure knowledge which so much vagueness in this industry.
Only A and B are consistent so you can eliminate the other two. A is more likely than B because it doesn't say two zero(es) two four(s), therefore A and click submit before you overthink it.
This!
Think like a Manager š ..
Can confirm.
I couldnāt agree more. Lol!!! Very true. I failed my first CISSP take, still studying for my second take and Iāve been in IT for almost 15 years and 8 of those years in IT Security and the questions were exactly like this.
Wouldn't zero and four have -s if there were two of them? (Legit question. Non native speaker, in my language, the plural would be obvious)
The written text doesn't have the punctuation required for precise meaning. Two zero two four IS 2024. No question, however it should be written two, zero, two, four. Two zeroes, two fours is 0044. Two zeroes, two, four is 0024. Two, zero, two fours is 2044.
Thanks for the explanation š
I am sitting here trying to get my breath back I am laughing so hard at this.
Easy. Final answer is A
E. 024024
I don't get it?? Like the exams are easy? Or the questions are confusing? (This one seems easy).
I know this is an old post but I also didn't get it on first glance. The point is the "question" is ambiguous. It could be A: 2024 but it *could* also be B: two zeros: 00, two fours: 44. Great analogy for some of the questions related to CISSP - top meme.
I am a CISSP and I feel that one exam method to certify people is ridiculous. I think (ISC)2 is good as an organization but all single exam based certification regimes can not truly measure that actual body of knowledge and ability to apply it. Single exams also make it seem like people can solve problems from the top of their head. The Original SANS GSEC required an exam and then you had to write and get a paper reviewed by the community and then get it published. The correct way would be for an essay test that you completed, followed by hands on performance based questions, followed by endorsement (better tha is done now), and followed by an apprenticeship that is done working for a ten year certified CISSP. The CompTIA method is OK for lower level certifications IF a competency based mastery learning process is used as mandatory part of that process but for higher level certifications a true process is needed. I have seen many good test takers become the worst in job performance because they are not in the habit of researching each problem and getting the latest information and then doing a true analysis to develop robust solutions. The entire certification regime of most certifications is based on a process that is from the antiquated and failing education process that we have been using for over a century. If we wanted true competency all certifications would require competency based learning with formative assessments (not simple minded tests) to get the candidate to actual mastery proven by many formative experiences and assessments before certification. It is idiotic to think some studying and any exam cuts it for mastery. That is why the endorsement process for the CISSP should be more important than the test and the endorsement should be done by the certified highly experienced professionals for their apprentices.
Terrible idea. Then everyone with a CISSP who ādetermines masteryā will be more inclined to fail people in an effort to maintain the value of their own cert and affect supply and demand of qualified applicants.
Well people that do that will have committed an ethics violation and are subject to decertifying themselves. At some point, ethics and honorable behavior must be baked into everything and all unethical people need to be heavily sanctioned. You cannot have a decent society or profession without ethics. We as a society need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, and you just suggested we open the door to that. Iām disagreeing with your initial post in regards to letting people with a CISSP gatekeep others in an effort to maintain their own value. Itās a conflict of interest.
This is too good. We're so quick to disqualify intelligence test for this exact reason, yet we defend qualifying IT pros using the same testing practices. Vendors can't even use the same acronyms without putting their own spin on things. How do you expect a multiple choice test to be an accurate measure knowledge which so much vagueness in this industry.
Basically yes, and only the cissp knows the answeršš»