MAKE CORRECTIONS TO THE ATTACHED PAPERS. CORRECTIONS TO BE DONE ARE BELOW. 1) PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING The submission includes three sources and citations. However, the self-dire

Introduction.

Phishing attacks have emerged as the most common cybersecurity threats to organizations today. In the instance of Synesthor, an IT security analyst, Maria urges using phishing simulations to counter these risks and points out that these exercises effectively lower the success rate of phishing attacks. Conversely, Li, the CEO, opposes the proposal based on financial costs and the feeling that another attack is a foreign possibility. The essay critically evaluates the requirements of both parties’ employing premises, logic, reliability of the sources used, possible biases, and finding logical fallacies within their arguments about phishing training.

Premises and Conclusion

The case study presented by Maria translates to two central premises as a basis of the argument:

1. Premise 1: In the last five years, phishing attacks have escalated and have brought about much mischief to the company.

2. Premise 2: It has been established that phishing simulations have a success rate decrease of 85 percent regarding phishing efforts.

Based on these premises, Maria concludes that a phishing simulation would help decrease the risk of another successful phishing attempt. The argument is inductive as it is likely but not definite in supporting the conclusion. Phishing simulations can mitigate risk, yet the argument is not conclusive that such attacks will no longer occur. The robustness of the argument is pegged on the credibility of the premises. Alluqmani et al. (2025) support the benefits of simulation-based training by indicating that the vulnerability of users to phishing attacks may be strong or weak due to non-stop and customized training. They determined that behavior change can quantifiably be achieved by implementing security awareness training, especially a customized and behavior-aware one. This makes the case of Maria that the risk associated with the future could be mitigated through simulations. However, the argument is robust, though the application of simulations will be a drawback on its own, as Ho et al. (2025) noted, which explains the possible downsides of this type of training.

Argument Map

The logical flow of the premises to the conclusion is evident on this map, as the argument it makes to justify the investment in phishing simulation is supported by the evidence of both premises. The map also explains that although the premises are well supported, the argument is based on assumptions regarding the efficiency of training and the rise of phishing attacks.

Premise 1: Phishing attacks have increased significantly and caused harm.

Premise 2: Phishing simulations reduce phishing attack success by 85%.

Conclusion: Therefore, phishing simulations should be implemented to mitigate risks.

Source Evaluation

Alluqmani et al. (2025) is one of the sources of information used in the case study as a detailed review of security awareness training (SAT) programs, namely the effectiveness of simulation-based training in mitigating phishing attacks. The source is reliable, as it has a peer-reviewed status, and the results were based on the synthesis of information from more than 30 studies; therefore, the results are credible. Nevertheless, it is somehow biased in favor of the SAT because it highlights its positive results without discussing its vulnerabilities in detail. Even with this possible bias, the article is a good source of information, founded on empirical findings and proper research.

Bias Identification.

Maria and Li exhibit some predispositions that could influence their judgment. Maria is discriminated against based on her background in cybersecurity. She might have a confirmation effect where she only looks at data that suits her reasoning that phishing simulations are the best option and avoids shortcomings or other possible solutions (Ho et al., 2025). Moreover, Li is biased because of the lack of money. His anchoring bias causes him to concentrate on the immediate expenses of using phishing simulations and ignore their long-term benefits. He fails to consider the increasing danger of cyberattacks.

Fallacy Identification

Li makes a false analogy fallacy in his argument that “lightning does not strike the same place twice”. Li makes the problem simple by comparing the chance of a phishing attempt to a random lightning strike, thus disregarding the systemic aspect of phishing. Phishing is not an infrequent random occurrence but a stable and imaginable organizational threat. The analogy fails because phishing attacks keep changing, and the possibility of such an attack in the future is high unless measures to prevent the onslaught or attacks are taken, like the phishing simulation (Ho et al., 2025). This fallacy undermines Li's argument, leaving it less compelling and blind to the real character of cyber risks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Maria's argument in favor of phishing simulations is reasonable. However, it can be too optimistic regarding its long-term effectiveness and the consistency of the effect on all employees. Phishing simulations are successful in terms of reducing risks. However, it is not a panacea and needs to form a component of the comprehensive strategy towards cybersecurity. The opposition by Li to the idea, being guided by the financial and false analogy to lightning strikes, ignores the phishing attack as a growing and evolving form of threat. Developing a strong approach to phishing simulations should be combined with other preventive actions and exercises that ensure a stable defense against increasingly advanced cyber threats.

References

Alluqmani, K., Karrar, A. E., Alhaidari, M., Alharbi, R., & Alharbi, S. (2025). Assessing the efficacy of security awareness training in mitigating phishing attacks: A review. International Journal, 14(3). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdelrahman-Karrar-4/publication/392495542_Assessing_the_Efficacy_of_Security_Awareness_Training_in_Mitigating_Phishing_Attacks_A_Review/links/684453a16b5a287c3049d002/Assessing-the-Efficacy-of-Security-Awareness-Training-in-Mitigating-Phishing-Attacks-A-Review.pdf

Ho, G., Mirian, A., Luo, E., Tong, K., Lee, E., Liu, L., ... & Voelker, G. M. (2025, May). Understanding the efficacy of phishing training in practice. In 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 37–54). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11023357/