Answer Key C2-015–C2-028
C2-015 — C
Rationale: FTC Choice/Consent addresses options about whether/how personal information is used beyond its original purpose.
Why others fail: Enforcement/Redress concerns sanctions; Integrity/Security is accuracy/protection; Access/Participation is viewing/challenging data.
Source: Table 3, pp. 57–58.
Confusion: Choice/Consent vs Access/Participation.
C2-016 — D
Rationale: Right to be Forgotten concerns erasure from the web and connects to retention/reputation.
Why others fail: ownership is control/value; identity is correct/private identity; speech concerns expression vs harmful behavior.
Source: §3.3, pp. 58–59.
C2-017 — A
Rationale: the distortion is graphical scale, so the specific pattern is misleading visualization.
Why others fail: Timing is observation window; sampling is sample selection; integration is provenance/meaning across systems.
Source: §3.4.2, pp. 59–60.
Confusion: visualization vs timing/bias.
C2-018 — B
Rationale: accurate values can still deceive when definitions/populations differ; ethical presentation requires like-for-like context.
Why others fail: storage, masking and ownership do not explain the false comparability.
Source: §3.4.3, p. 60.
Confusion: invalid comparison vs visualization.
C2-019 — C
Rationale: Hunch and search means a prior belief drives repeated searching/filtering for confirming evidence while alternatives are ignored.
Why others fail: Context/culture is embedded viewpoint; sampling bias is unrepresentative sample selection; pre-defined-result collection shapes data collection from the outset rather than post hoc search.
Source: §3.4.4, pp. 60–61.
Confusion: hunch-search vs pre-defined-result/sampling.
C2-020 — D
Rationale: excluding a major region creates an unrepresentative sample through the selection method — biased sampling methodology.
Why others fail: biased use is post-collection manipulation; context/culture may contribute but is not the direct mechanism; hunch-search is confirmation seeking.
Source: §3.4.4, p. 61.
Confusion: sampling bias vs biased use.
C2-021 — A
Rationale: trustworthy integration requires provenance/lineage, reliable Metadata, Data Quality evidence, ownership/protection and auditable change/remediation history.
Why others fail: technical loading proves only movement; deleting sources harms provenance; masking addresses disclosure, not unknown meaning/history.
Source: §3.4.5, pp. 61–62.
Confusion: technical vs trustworthy integration.
C2-022 — B
Rationale: even well-intended remediation can alter data improperly/illegally; auditability creates traceable evidence of what changed.
Why others fail: no universal data-subject approval rule is stated; remediation is not limited to non-personal data; a log proves history, not correctness.
Source: §3.4.5, p. 62.
Confusion: good intent vs auditable control.
C2-023 — C
Rationale: obfuscation is risk reduction, not a complete anonymity guarantee; combination can re-identify, so Governance/context-aware safeguards remain necessary.
Why others fail: it is not primarily DQ; direct identifiers absent does not equal safe; Chapter 2 does not impose a universal ban whenever theoretical re-identification exists.
Source: §3.4.6, pp. 62–63.
Confusion: obfuscation vs anonymity/safety.
C2-024 — D
Rationale: §3.5.1 begins improvement by understanding current-state practices and how they connect to ethical/compliance drivers.
Why others fail: tools, affirmations and a new code can come later; starting with them skips diagnosis.
Source: §3.5.1, p. 63.
Confusion: current-state review vs immediate solution.
C2-025 — A
Rationale: a recurring access review is a control because it tests/enforces whether the expected access practice is followed.
Why others fail: principle = protect privacy; risk = inappropriate disclosure; practice = restrict access based on need.
Source: §3.5.2, pp. 63–64.
Confusion: principle vs risk vs practice vs control.
C2-026 — B
Rationale: the roadmap converts ethical strategy into an approved timeline of concrete training, communications, remediation, mitigation, monitoring, roles and processes.
Why others fail: it does not replace policy; it is broader than a law list; it is organizational, not a one-time technical diagram.
Source: §3.5.3, pp. 64–65.
Confusion: strategy vs roadmap vs policy.
C2-027 — C
Rationale: the ethical-risk model examines Population selection → behavior/data capture → BI/analytics/Data Science activity → results/access/use.
Why others fail: the other sequences are technical operations, project management or processing steps, not the ethical checkpoints.
Source: §3.5.4, pp. 65–66; Figure 13.
Confusion: ethical-risk model vs technical lifecycle.
C2-028 — D
Rationale: Chapter 2 combines Governance standards/oversight, legal expertise and practitioner responsibility. Ethical duty cannot be fully outsourced.
Why others fail: law is not the whole ethical standard; statistical accuracy does not resolve fairness/misuse/autonomy; Governance does not eliminate practitioner judgment and escalation duty.
Source: §3.6 p. 67; §3.5.4 pp. 65–66.
Confusion: Governance vs Legal vs practitioner responsibility.