CISM Information Security Governance Practice Question
A CISO is building a business case for a new security tool. Which of the following approaches is MOST effective for justifying the investment?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISM often tests the difference between technical justification (features, peer adoption, price benchmarking) and business justification (quantified risk reduction and expected loss avoidance), so candidates who pick the 'advanced features' option confuse engineering merit with business value.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Demonstrating how the tool reduces the likelihood and impact of a potential breach, translating to expected loss avoidance
A CISO justifies security investment in business language: risk reduction expressed as expected loss avoidance. Option C frames the tool in terms of reduced likelihood and impact of a breach, which translates directly into financial terms (ALE = SLE × ARO) that executives and the board can evaluate against cost. This aligns security spend with business risk appetite and demonstrates ROI rather than technical merit.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Highlighting that competitors are using the same tool
Why it's wrong here
Competitor adoption is not evidence of risk reduction or return for this organisation, and may simply reflect their own poor decisions. It tempts because fear of falling behind is persuasive in boardrooms. Quantifying the organisation's own annualised loss expectancy against the tool's cost provides defensible financial justification.
- ✗
Comparing the tool's cost to industry averages for similar tools
Why it's wrong here
Industry average pricing says nothing about the risk reduction or loss avoided at this organisation, so it cannot justify spend. It tempts because benchmarking appears objective and is useful for negotiating licence costs once a tool is chosen. Quantifying annualised loss expectancy against tool cost demonstrates financial return.
- ✓
Demonstrating how the tool reduces the likelihood and impact of a potential breach, translating to expected loss avoidance
Why this is correct
Quantifying reduced breach likelihood and impact as expected loss avoidance converts security benefit into financial terms executives already use for investment decisions. This risk-based quantification directly justifies the tool against its cost, unlike compliance or technical arguments that do not demonstrate measurable business value.
- ✗
Emphasizing the tool's advanced features and technical capabilities
Why it's wrong here
Feature lists describe capability, not the risk reduction or financial return the investment delivers, so they fail to justify spend to executive stakeholders. It tempts because technical teams evaluate tools this way and vendors lead with features. Mapping capabilities to quantified risk reduction and cost avoidance aligns the case with business objectives.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISM question is part of Courseiva's 924-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISACA exam blueprint
This CISM practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISM exam.