Amazon
Anthropic
Avaya
Cisco
CompTIA
CrowdStrike
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
Google
ISC
ISC2
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
NVIDIA
Okta
Palo Alto Networks
Salesforce
SAP
All Vendors

IAPP Certified Information Privacy Manager CIPM Dumps in PDF

Free IAPP CIPM Real Questions (page: 45)

CIPM PDF — 361 Questions

In which situation would a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) be the least likely to be required?

  1. If a company created a credit-scoring platform five years ago.
  2. If a health-care professional or lawyer processed personal data from a patient's file.
  3. If a social media company created a new product compiling personal data to generate user profiles.
  4. If an after-school club processed children's data to determine which children might have food allergies.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Why option B is the least likely to require a PIA
Nature of the activity – The scenario describes a health-care professional or lawyer simply handling data that already resides in a patient’s record. No new collection, processing, or innovation is involved; the data is being used under existing professional privilege and regulatory obligations. Regulatory overlay – These professions are already subject to strict confidentiality and sector-specific statutes (e.g., HIPAA, attorney-client privilege). A separate PIA is therefore redundant because the privacy safeguards are mandated by law, not discretionary risk-based assessment. Impact assessment trigger – A PIA is typically required when a project entails novel, large-scale, or high-risk processing (e.g., new profiling, automated decision-making, extensive data sharing). The routine handling of existing patient data does not meet that threshold.
Why the other options are more likely to need a PIA
Option A – Credit-scoring platform (5 years old)
Credit scoring involves automated profiling of large populations and decisions that affect financial opportunities, which is considered high-risk under most privacy frameworks. Even if the platform is established, a PIA is usually required at launch or when substantial changes occur.
Option C – Social-media company profiling users
Creating user profiles from extensive personal data, especially for targeted advertising or recommendation engines, entails systematic monitoring and large-scale processing , meeting the classic PIA trigger. The novelty and risk profile are high.
Option D – After-school club managing children’s allergy data
Processing children’s health data for safety reasons involves special-category data and a duty of care. The stakes are high—mis-classification could cause health harm—so a PIA would typically be mandated to verify safeguards.
Summary
A PIA is principally required when new, extensive, or risky processing of personal data is undertaken. The simple, routine handling of existing patient data by a health-care professional or lawyer (option B) lacks those characteristics, making it the least likely scenario to necessitate a PIA.


Reference:

IAPP – When to Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment: https://iapp.org/resources/topics/when-to-conduct-a-pia/ CNIL – Guide on Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA): https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-protection-impact-assessment-dpia
--- (Answer prepared for a certification-exam review context.)



Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), what must be included in a written agreement between the controller and processor in relation to processing conducted on the controller's behalf?

  1. An obligation on the processor to report any personal data breach to the controller within 72 hours.
  2. An obligation on both parties to report any serious personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
  3. An obligation on both parties to agree to a termination of the agreement if the other party is responsible for a personal data breach.
  4. An obligation on the processor to assist the controller in complying with the controller's obligations to notify the supervisory authority about personal data breaches.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Justification
Option D correctly reflects the GDPR-required clause in Article 28(3)(h). The processor must provide assistance to the controller—such as enabling the controller to meet its 72-hour breach-notification duty, supplying relevant information, and facilitating the required documentation—when a personal data breach occurs.
Option A describes a 72-hour reporting obligation, but this duty rests with the controller (Article 33), not the processor. The processor’s role is limited to cooperating with the controller’s reporting.
Option B misstates the law: only the controller is obligated to notify the supervisory authority (and, when required, the data subjects). The processor has no direct reporting duty to the authority.
Option C suggests automatic termination for a breach, which is not mandated by the GDPR.
While a breach may trigger termination under the contract terms, the regulation does not impose a generic termination clause tied specifically to a breach.
Therefore, D is the only provision that directly aligns with the GDPR’s contractual requirement for processor-controller breach-notification assistance.


Reference:

1. European Commission – GDPR Summary, Article 28: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-
protection_en 2. EUR-Lex – Official text of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 28(3)(h): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679-20160525
Key agreement requirement: The written contract must obligate the processor to assist the controller in fulfilling its breach-notification duties, including providing necessary data and facilitating timely communication with the supervisory authority.
Why other answers are incorrect: • A – Misplaces the reporting duty. • B – Incorrectly assigns reporting responsibility to both parties. • C – Imposes a generic termination clause not specified by the GDPR.
This precise alignment makes option D the correct and technically justified answer.



SCENARIO -Please use the following to answer the next question: Perhaps Jack Kelly should have stayed in the U.S. He enjoys a formidable reputation inside the company, Special
Handling Shipping, for his work in reforming certain "rogue" offices. Last year, news broke that a police sting operation had revealed a drug ring operating in the Providence, Rhode Island office in the United States. Video from the office's video surveillance cameras leaked to news operations showed a drug exchange between Special Handling staff and undercover officers. In the wake of this incident, Kelly had been sent to Providence to change the "hands off" culture that upper management believed had let the criminal elements conduct their illicit transactions. After a few weeks under Kelly's direction, the office became a model of efficiency and customer service. Kelly monitored his workers' activities using the same cameras that had recorded the illegal conduct of their former co-workers. Now Kelly has been charged with turning around the office in Cork, Ireland, another trouble spot. The company has received numerous reports of the staff leaving the office unattended.
When Kelly arrived, he found that even when present, the staff often spent their days socializing or conducting personal business on their mobile phones. Again, he observed their behaviors using surveillance cameras. He issued written reprimands to six staff members based on the first day of video alone. Much to Kelly's surprise and chagrin, he and the company are now under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland for allegedly violating the privacy rights of employees. Kelly was told that the company's license for the cameras listed facility security as their main use, but he does not know why this matters. He has pointed out to his superiors that the company's training programs on privacy protection and data collection mention nothing about surveillance video. You are a privacy protection consultant, hired by the company to assess this incident, report on the legal and compliance issues, and recommend next steps.
What does this example best illustrate about training requirements for privacy protection?

  1. Training needs must be weighed against financial costs.
  2. Training on local laws must be implemented for all personnel.
  3. Training must be repeated frequently to respond to new legislation.
  4. Training must include assessments to verify that the material is mastered.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The incident shows that staff were unaware of Irish data-protection law, which requires a lawful basis (e.g., purpose limitation) for video surveillance; the cameras were justified only for “facility security,” yet the purpose of monitoring employee conduct was not documented.
Privacy-training must therefore address the specific legal obligations of each jurisdiction where operations occur; without local-law coverage, personnel cannot properly apply privacy principles or justify surveillance actions.
Option B captures this core lesson: training on local laws must be implemented for all personnel so that employees understand jurisdictional requirements, can align technical controls with legal bases, and avoid unlawful processing.
Option A misplaces cost considerations as the primary driver; the violation stemmed from legal ignorance, not budgetary limits.
Option C focuses on frequency of updates; while important, the immediate deficiency was lacking jurisdiction-specific content, not repetition.
Option D suggests assessments for mastery; assessments verify learning but do not replace the need to initially teach the relevant local statutes.
References
International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), CIPP/E Body of Knowledge – Privacy Laws and Regulations: https://iapp.org/certify/cipp/european-privacy/ Irish Data Protection Commission, Guidance on the Use of Surveillance Cameras: https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/our-work/guidance-notes/guidance-on-the-use-of-surveillance-cameras
The central takeaway is that privacy-training programs must incorporate jurisdiction-specific legal requirements and be mandatory for every employee who handles personal data or surveillance equipment.



SCENARIO -Please use the following to answer the next question: Perhaps Jack Kelly should have stayed in the U.S. He enjoys a formidable reputation inside the company, Special Handling Shipping, for his work in reforming certain "rogue" offices. Last year, news broke that a police sting operation had revealed a drug ring operating in the Providence, Rhode Island office in the United States. Video from the office's video surveillance cameras leaked to news operations showed a drug exchange between Special Handling staff and undercover officers. In the wake of this incident, Kelly had been sent to Providence to change the "hands off" culture that upper management believed had let the criminal elements conduct their illicit transactions. After a few weeks under Kelly's direction, the office became a model of efficiency and customer service. Kelly monitored his workers' activities using the same cameras that had recorded the illegal conduct of their former co-workers. Now Kelly has been charged with turning around the office in Cork, Ireland, another trouble spot. The company has received numerous reports of the staff leaving the office unattended.
When Kelly arrived, he found that even when present, the staff often spent their days socializing or conducting personal business on their mobile phones. Again, he observed their behaviors using surveillance cameras. He issued written reprimands to six staff members based on the first day of video alone. Much to Kelly's surprise and chagrin, he and the company are now under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland for allegedly violating the privacy rights of employees. Kelly was told that the company's license for the cameras listed facility security as their main use, but he does not know why this matters. He has pointed out to his superiors that the company's training programs on privacy protection and data collection mention nothing about surveillance video. You are a privacy protection consultant, hired by the company to assess this incident, report on the legal and compliance issues, and recommend next steps. Knowing that the regulator is now investigating, what would be the best step to take?

  1. Consult an attorney experienced in privacy law and litigation.
  2. Use your background and knowledge to set a course of action.
  3. If you know the organization is guilty, advise it to accept the punishment.
  4. Negotiate the terms of a settlement before formal legal action takes place.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Technical Justification
Option A – Consult an attorney experienced in privacy law and litigation is the only response that directly addresses the regulator-initiated investigation and the need for a defensible, legally-sound strategy.
The Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) in Ireland can impose administrative fines up to €20 million or 4 % of global turnover; only qualified legal counsel can evaluate exposure, advise on privilege, and craft a response that complies with the GDPR and Irish data-protection statutes. An attorney can assess whether the surveillance footage constitutes “personal data,” determine lawful bases for processing, and advise on required mitigations (e.g., lawful purpose documentation, DPIA updates, employee notice). Counsel can also protect privileged communications with internal teams and ensure that any subsequent negotiations or settlements are conducted without waiving legal rights.
Option B – Use your background and knowledge to set a course of action lacks the necessary legal authority.
While the consultant can outline operational steps, the DPC’s inquiry is a legal process that must be managed by a licensed professional; otherwise, the response may be deemed insufficient or self-incriminating.
Option C – If you know the organization is guilty, advise it to accept the punishment is counter-productive. Admitting guilt without a thorough legal review may expose the company to unnecessary liability, waive privilege, and limit the ability to negotiate mitigating measures or challenge the regulator’s findings.
Option D – Negotiate the terms of a settlement before formal legal action takes place is premature. Settlement discussions require a clear understanding of the legal exposure and the strength of the regulator’s case; this understanding is only attainable after a qualified attorney conducts a formal legal assessment.
Conclusion – The immediate, prudent step is to engage counsel experienced in privacy law (Option A) so that the company can obtain a legally defensible roadmap before any further interaction with the DPC.


Reference:

Irish Data Protection Commission guidance on employee monitoring and video surveillance: https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/our-work/guidance/employee-monitoring International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) – Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) code of practice: https://iapp.org/resources/certificate-programs/cipm/



SCENARIO -Please use the following to answer the next question: Perhaps Jack Kelly should have stayed in the U.S. He enjoys a formidable reputation inside the company, Special Handling Shipping, for his work in reforming certain "rogue" offices. Last year, news broke that a police sting operation had revealed a drug ring operating in the Providence, Rhode Island office in the United States. Video from the office's video surveillance cameras leaked to news operations showed a drug exchange between Special Handling staff and undercover officers. In the wake of this incident, Kelly had been sent to Providence to change the "hands off" culture that upper management believed had let the criminal elements conduct their illicit transactions. After a few weeks under Kelly's direction, the office became a model of efficiency and customer service. Kelly monitored his workers' activities using the same cameras that had recorded the illegal conduct of their former co-workers. Now Kelly has been charged with turning around the office in Cork, Ireland, another trouble spot. The company has received numerous reports of the staff leaving the office unattended.
When Kelly arrived, he found that even when present, the staff often spent their days socializing or conducting personal business on their mobile phones. Again, he observed their behaviors using surveillance cameras. He issued written reprimands to six staff members based on the first day of video alone. Much to Kelly's surprise and chagrin, he and the company are now under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland for allegedly violating the privacy rights of employees. Kelly was told that the company's license for the cameras listed facility security as their main use, but he does not know why this matters. He has pointed out to his superiors that the company's training programs on privacy protection and data collection mention nothing about surveillance video. You are a privacy protection consultant, hired by the company to assess this incident, report on the legal and compliance issues, and recommend next steps.
What should you advise this company regarding the status of security cameras at their offices in the United States?

  1. Add security cameras at facilities that are now without them.
  2. Set policies about the purpose and use of the security cameras.
  3. Reduce the number of security cameras located inside the building.
  4. Restrict access to surveillance video taken by the security cameras and destroy the recordings after a designated period of time.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Why option B is the optimal recommendation
Purpose limitation and lawful basis – Under U.S. privacy frameworks (e.g., state video-surveillance statutes and the FTC’s fairness principles), a camera system must be deployed for a clearly defined, legitimate purpose (e.g., physical security) and its use must be limited to that purpose. Formal policies that articulate the intended use, scope, and limitations create the legal justification needed to defend the surveillance program against privacy challenges. Accountability and governance – Establishing written policies demonstrates organizational accountability, satisfies “governance” requirements in standards such as ISO 27001 and NIST 800-53, and provides a basis for audits and employee training. It also clarifies retention, access-control, and disclosure rules, reducing the risk of incidental privacy violations. Alignment with best-practice guidance – The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Privacy Shield (now replaced by the Data Privacy Framework) both emphasize that purpose-specific policies are a prerequisite before expanding or modifying surveillance technology. Operational clarity – Policies enable consistent enforcement (e.g., who may view footage, under what circumstances, and for how long), which is essential when management must demonstrate compliance to regulators or insurers.
Why the other options are less suitable
Option A – “Add security cameras at facilities that are now without them.” Adding more cameras without a documented purpose expands the scope of data collection, increasing privacy exposure and creating additional compliance obligations. It does not address the core issue of how existing footage is used or protected; rather, it compounds the risk of unlawful surveillance.
Option C – “Reduce the number of security cameras located inside the building.” Simply cutting the number of cameras does not guarantee lawful processing of footage that is already being captured. The problem lies not in quantity but in the absence of clear policy governing purpose, retention, and access. Reducing cameras may give a false sense of compliance while leaving the underlying governance gap intact.
Option D – “Restrict access to surveillance video taken by the security cameras and destroy the recordings after a designated period of time.” While data-minimization (restricted access and retention limits) is an important safeguard, it is only one component of a broader compliance program. Without first establishing a purpose-specific policy, any retention schedule or access-control measure lacks legal grounding and may be inconsistent with other statutory requirements (e.g., potential law-enforcement requests). Moreover, outright destruction may conflict with legitimate security needs and evidentiary obligations.
Bottom line: The most appropriate immediate step is to draft and enforce comprehensive policies that define the purpose, scope, and lawful basis for using security cameras . These policies should be coupled with training, documented access controls, and retention schedules to ensure full compliance with U.S. privacy and surveillance regulations.


Reference:

International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). Surveillance and Privacy: A Practical Guide. https://iapp.org/resources/surveillance-privacy-guide/ Irish Data Protection Commission. Guidance on the Use of CCTV Surveillance Cameras. https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-on-the-use-of-cctv-surveillance-cameras-0 .
These resources outline the legal foundations for purpose-specific surveillance policies and the importance of documented governance when deploying security camera systems in the United States and EU jurisdictions.



You would like your organization to be independently audited to demonstrate compliance with international privacy standards and to identify gaps for remediation.
Which type of audit would help you achieve this objective?

  1. First-party audit.
  2. Second-party audit.
  3. Third-party audit.
  4. Fourth-party audit.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

Technical Justification
Definition – A third-party audit is conducted by an independent external organization that is not part of the entity being audited. Independence & Objectivity – Because the auditor has no operational or financial relationship with the organization, the resulting report is perceived as unbiased and can be relied upon by regulators, partners, and customers. Purpose Alignment – The goal is to demonstrate compliance with international privacy standards (e.g., ISO 27701, GDPR-aligned frameworks) and to identify remediation gaps. Only a third-party audit can credibly claim to meet both objectives simultaneously.
Why Other Options Are Inferior
First-party audit – Performed internally; lacks external credibility and cannot furnish an objective, independent attestation for external stakeholders. Second-party audit – Conducted by a customer, supplier, or partner; while it may assess contractual obligations, it is generally tied to a specific relationship and may not cover broader regulatory compliance or provide universally accepted assurance. Fourth-party audit – Not a standard term in privacy governance; when used, it typically refers to audits of a provider’s sub-service providers and does not directly serve the organization’s own compliance demonstration.
Conclusion – The only audit type that satisfies both the need for independent verification and comprehensive gap identification is the third-party audit .


Reference:

ISO/IEC 27701:2022 – Privacy Information Management System (PIMS) requirements and audit guidance ( https://www.iso.org/standard/75884.html ) IAPP CIPM Body of Knowledge – “Audit Types and Their Applications” ( https://www.iapp.org/certify/cipm-body-of-knowledge/ )



An organization's business continuity plan or disaster recovery plan does NOT typically include what?

  1. Recovery time objectives.
  2. Emergency response guidelines.
  3. Statement of organizational responsibilities.
  4. Retention schedule for storage and destruction of information.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Justification
Option D – Retention schedule for storage and destruction of information – This item belongs to the information-governance / records-management domain, not to a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) or Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP). The core purpose of a BCP/DRP is to define how the organization continues or restores critical operations after a disruption.
While retention schedules influence how long data is kept, they do not define recovery priorities, response actions, or responsibilities, and therefore are not a typical component of a BCP/DRP.
Option A – Recovery time objectives (RTOs) – RTOs are a cornerstone of DRP design; they specify the maximum allowable downtime for critical processes. Consequently, any comprehensive BCP/DRP must include documented RTOs as part of the recovery strategy.
Option B – Emergency response guidelines – These are standard elements of a BCP/DRP. They outline immediate actions to protect life and property, coordinate personnel, and initiate the continuity process, so they are normally included.
Option C – Statement of organizational responsibilities – A clear allocation of roles and responsibilities (e.g., who authorizes activation, who executes recovery tasks) is essential for effective continuity planning and is routinely documented within both BCP and DRP frameworks.
Since a retention schedule pertains to data-life-cycle management rather than operational recovery and resilience, it is the only choice that does not typically appear in a BCP/DRP.


Reference:

Business Continuity Institute (BCI). Good Practice Guide: Business Continuity Management. https://www.bci.org.uk/resources/good-practice-guides NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1. Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-34/rev-1/final



SCENARIO -Please use the following to answer the next question: Edufox has hosted an annual convention of users of its famous e-learning software platform, and over time, it has become a grand event. It fills one of the large downtown conference hotels and overflows into the others, with several thousand attendees enjoying three days of presentations, panel discussions and networking. The convention is the centerpiece of the company's product rollout schedule and a great training opportunity for current users. The sales force also encourages prospective clients to attend to get a better sense of the ways in which the system can be customized to meet diverse needs and understand that when they buy into this system, they are joining a community that feels like family. This year's conference is only three weeks away, and you have just heard news of a new initiative supporting it: a smartphone app for attendees. The app will support late registration, highlight the featured presentations and provide a mobile version of the conference program. It also links to a restaurant reservation system with the best cuisine in the areas featured. "It's going to be great," the developer, Deidre Hoffman, tells you, "if, that is, we actually get it working!" She laughs nervously but explains that because of the tight time frame she'd been given to build the app, she outsourced the job to a local firm. "It's just three young people," she says, "but they do great work." She describes some of the other apps they have built.
When asked how they were selected for this job, Deidre shrugs. "They do good work, so I chose them." Deidre is a terrific employee with a strong track record. That's why she's been charged to deliver this rushed project. You're sure she has the best interests of the company at heart, and you don't doubt that she's under pressure to meet a deadline that cannot be pushed back. However, you have concerns about the app's handling of personal data and its security safeguards. Over lunch in the break room, you start to talk to her about it, but she quickly tries to reassure you, "I'm sure with your help we can fix any security issues if we have to, but I doubt there'll be any. These people build apps for a living, and they know what they're doing. You worry too much, but that's why you're so good at your job!" Since it is too late to restructure the contract with the vendor or prevent the app from being deployed, what is the best step for you to take next?

  1. Implement a more comprehensive suite of information security controls than the one used by the vendor.
  2. Ask the vendor for verifiable information about their privacy protections so weaknesses can be identified.
  3. Develop security protocols for the vendor and mandate that they be deployed.
  4. Insist on an audit of the vendor's privacy procedures and safeguards.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Why option B is the best choice
-The immediate priority is to obtain concrete evidence of the vendor’s privacy and security posture before the app goes live. A verifiable statement (e.g., privacy-impact assessment, certification, documented controls) lets the privacy manager evaluate whether the app meets the organization’s data-protection requirements. -This approach does not add unnecessary workload (as in A), impose unenforceable mandates (as in C), or rely on an external audit that may be costly and time-consuming without first confirming that the vendor is willing to share information (as in D). -Option B aligns with the Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) principle of “risk-based management”: identify the risk, gather the necessary information, and then decide on appropriate controls.
Why the other options are less suitable
-A – Implement a more comprehensive suite of controls than the vendor uses – Adding controls unilaterally can create compatibility problems, duplicate effort, and give a false sense of security when the vendor’s actual safeguards are unknown. -C – Develop security protocols for the vendor and mandate their deployment – The vendor’s contractual obligations are already fixed; forcing new protocols after the fact may breach the contract and does not address the current lack of verifiable information. -D – Insist on an audit of the vendor’s privacy procedures and safeguards – An audit is a later-stage remediation tool. Before an audit can be performed, the manager must first know what the vendor’s practices actually are; otherwise the audit may be ineffective or based on incomplete data.
Therefore, the most appropriate next step is to request verifiable privacy-protection information from the vendor so that any gaps can be identified and remediated promptly.


Reference:

International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) – Privacy-by-Design Checklist: https://iapp.org/resources/article/privacy-by-design-checklist/ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – Cybersecurity Framework: Identify, Protect, Detect,
Respond, Recover: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/identify-assessment (provides a risk-based approach for evaluating vendor safeguards)



PDF
Viewing page 45 of 47

Share your comments for IAPP CIPM exam with other users:

L
Lele
11/20/2023 11:55:00 AM

does anybody know if are these real exam questions?

EUROPEAN UNION
G
Girish Jain
10/9/2023 12:01:00 PM

are these questions similar to actual questions in the exam? because they seem to be too easy

Anonymous
P
Phil
12/8/2022 11:16:00 PM

i have a lot of experience but what comes in the exam is totally different from the practical day to day tasks. so i thought i would rather rely on these brain dumps rather failing the exam.

GERMANY
B
BV
6/8/2023 4:35:00 AM

good questions

NETHERLANDS
K
krishna
12/19/2023 2:05:00 AM

valied exam dumps. they were very helpful and i got a pretty good score. i am very grateful for this service and exam questions

Anonymous
P
Pie
9/3/2023 4:56:00 AM

will it help?

INDIA
L
Lucio
10/6/2023 1:45:00 PM

very useful to verify knowledge before exam

POLAND
A
Ajay
5/17/2023 4:54:00 AM

good stuffs

Anonymous
T
TestPD1
8/10/2023 12:19:00 PM

question 17 : responses arent b and c ?

EUROPEAN UNION
N
Nhlanhla
12/13/2023 5:26:00 AM

just passed the exam on my first try using these dumps.

Anonymous
R
Rizwan
1/6/2024 2:18:00 AM

very helpful

INDIA
Y
Yady
5/24/2023 10:40:00 PM

these questions look good.

SINGAPORE
K
Kettie
10/12/2023 1:18:00 AM

this is very helpful content

Anonymous
S
SB
7/21/2023 3:18:00 AM

please provide the dumps

UNITED STATES
D
David
8/2/2023 8:20:00 AM

it is amazing

Anonymous
U
User
8/3/2023 3:32:00 AM

quesion 178 about "a banking system that predicts whether a loan will be repaid is an example of the" the answer is classification. not regresion, you should fix it.

EUROPEAN UNION
Q
quen
7/26/2023 10:39:00 AM

please upload apache spark dumps

Anonymous
E
Erineo
11/2/2023 5:34:00 PM

q14 is b&c to reduce you will switch off mail for every single alert and you will switch on daily digest to get a mail once per day, you might even skip the empty digest mail but i see this as a part of the daily digest adjustment

Anonymous
P
Paul
10/21/2023 8:25:00 AM

i think it is good question

Anonymous
U
Unknown
8/15/2023 5:09:00 AM

good for students who wish to give certification.

INDIA
C
Ch
11/20/2023 10:56:00 PM

is there a google drive link to the images? the links in questions are not working.

AUSTRALIA
J
Joey
5/16/2023 5:25:00 AM

very promising, looks great, so much wow!

Anonymous
A
alaska
10/24/2023 5:48:00 AM

i scored 87% on the az-204 exam. thanks! i always trust

GERMANY
N
nnn
7/9/2023 11:09:00 PM

good need more

Anonymous
U
User-sfdc
12/29/2023 7:21:00 AM

sample questions seems good

Anonymous
T
Tamer dam
8/4/2023 10:21:00 AM

huawei is ok

UNITED STATES
Y
YK
12/11/2023 1:10:00 AM

good one nice

JAPAN
D
de
8/28/2023 2:38:00 AM

please continue

GERMANY
D
DMZ
6/25/2023 11:56:00 PM

this exam dumps just did the job. i donot want to ruffle your feathers but your exam dumps and mock test engine is amazing.

UNITED KINGDOM
J
Jose
8/30/2023 6:14:00 AM

nice questions

PORTUGAL
T
Tar01
7/24/2023 7:07:00 PM

the explanation are really helpful

Anonymous
D
DaveG
12/15/2023 4:50:00 PM

just passed my exam yesterday on my first attempt. these dumps were extremely helpful in passing first time. the questions were very, very similar to these questions!

Anonymous
A
A.K.
6/30/2023 6:34:00 AM

cosmos db is paas not saas

Anonymous
S
S Roychowdhury
6/26/2023 5:27:00 PM

what is the percentage of common questions in gcp exam compared to 197 dump questions? are they 100% matching with real gcp exam?

Anonymous
AI Tutor 👋 I’m here to help!