Whether or not a countermeasure is allocated to a vulnerability is determined by the level of danger to the organization is the step in the OPEC process.
<h3>What are the
steps in OPEC process?</h3>
The five steps of the OPEC process are as follows:
(1) identify key information,
(2) identify the danger,
(3) evaluate vulnerabilities,
(4) estimate risk, and
(5) plan and implement countermeasures
Thus, countermeasure is allocated to a vulnerability is determined by the level of danger
For more details about steps in OPEC process, click here:
brainly.com/question/14305745
#SPJ1
Answer:
d. overwhelmed
Explanation:
Out of the given options overwhelmed does not describes the police as they are not intended to get overwhelmed by any sort of compliments or works as this might hamper their quality of service.
A police should be sensitive to know about the a person emotion in different situations.
Police should be knowledgeable to have an ease and access to control the difficult situations.
Police should be competent to provide a quality service for the general public and fight tough situations.
1. We can analyze the possible social benefits or consequences by creating a standard that deemed as 'desirable' social situation and measures the situation before and after the militarization.
If after the militarization our society got closer to the desirable outcome, we would say that the militarization produces a social benefit.
2. We could take a look at the example of American military occupation in Iraq.
Initially, we intended for the militarization to create a democratic country in iraq after we remove the dictator from power.
But it only resulted in a vacuum that attract many radical groups to came in to control the country. In this case, we can conclude that the militarization produce more consequences than benefit.
I think it would be B as it has to do with physical property
Answer:
To support any claim, we need evidence that is in favor. And they are the arguments and explanations that best supports the claim. And those which does not supports the claim, leave the claim uncertain. And different debates will have a different list of evidence and reasons which support, and also a list that does not support the claim. Hence, first find the issue, which is the claim, and then find out what supports and what does not support the claim. And then you can put your words forward. That is the correct way to participate in a healthy debate. Remember, you should either support the claim, or you should be against the claim. And you will have to stick to it till the very end, supporting it with your thoughts and evidence that you can collect while preparing for the debate. The better you prepare, the healthier it is going to be the debate. And you should never be 50-50. You should either agree or disagree. Like if you are debating on climate change, you can either support it or not support it. The bushfire in Australia is a fact that supports, and you can pick it up if you are supporting, and economic loss is a fact that does not support it. You can pick that fact if you do not support it. The point is, you should put forward strong facts, And that makes a debate healthier.
Explanation:
Please check the answer.
