Practice Exams:

View All

Amazon AWS Solutions Architect Professional SAP-C02 Performance Improvement Metrics Global Practice Test

Domain 3.3 • 25 original questions

This AWS SAP-C02 AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional practice test focuses on performance improvement metrics global delivery rightsizing and bottlenecks through original architecture scenarios aligned to the current AWS Certification exam guide. Use the full ExamSnap SAP-C02 collection for practice across all four content domains. For broader exam preparation, review the Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional SAP-C02 Exam Dumps page.

Instructions: Select the best answer for each question. Review the explanation after answering; each distractor includes a reason it is not the best choice for that scenario.

Question 1

Adventure Works operates a batch settlement service. In a security design review, the network architect must use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while using measurable evidence before and after remediation. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 43 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use Systems Manager Patch Manager or managed-service patching and policy-based backup services with compliance reporting and restore validation
Test changes against performance and cost objectives using representative traffic, then adopt only changes that preserve required service levels
Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Why: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Option review:

A: Patching and backups need defined schedules, scope, compliance evidence, isolation, and testing to be dependable security controls. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

B: Optimization should be validated against the workload objectives so savings or speed improvements do not create new reliability or performance problems. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

C: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

D: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Learning point: Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture. Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. In this variant, the decision also has to work while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Question 2

A enterprise architect at VanArsdel Energy is reviewing a machine learning inference service. The business requires the team to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while using measurable evidence before and after remediation. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 3 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Identify each required component that lacks redundancy and replace or redesign it with multi-AZ, managed HA, or redundant paths appropriate to the failure domain
Store secrets in Secrets Manager or Parameter Store as appropriate, enforce least privilege, and review access against data sensitivity and regulatory requirements
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely

Correct answer: C

Why: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Option review:

A: Reliability improves when critical single points of failure are removed and failover mechanisms match the intended failure scope. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

B: Secret management and least privilege reduce credential exposure and unnecessary authority, especially for regulated or sensitive workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

C: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

D: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Learning point: Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics. Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. In this variant, the decision also has to work while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Question 3

Contoso Retail is changing its payment platform as part of a production readiness review. Which AWS approach best enables the team to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while using measurable evidence before and after remediation? The current estate includes 10 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Adopt a deployment strategy with health checks, progressive exposure, and automated rollback that matches the application and capacity constraints
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Option review:

A: Deployment improvements should reduce blast radius and make unhealthy releases detectable and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

B: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

C: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

D: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Learning point: Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization. AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. In this variant, the decision also has to work while using measurable evidence before and after remediation.

Question 4

An architecture board at Lucerne Publishing asks the security architect to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks without making unrelated architecture changes for a IoT ingestion service. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 17 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use CloudTrail and AWS security/configuration services for traceability and findings, with AWS Config/EventBridge/automation for controlled remediation

Correct answer: A

Option review:

A: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without making unrelated architecture changes.

B: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

C: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

D: Traceability, centralized findings, and safe automation help teams detect policy drift and reduce time to remediate recurring security issues. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

Question 5

Datum Analytics is documenting its target-state architecture. Which choice most accurately addresses the need to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model without making unrelated architecture changes? The current estate includes 24 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.
Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use observed growth trends to add replication, load balancing, and Auto Scaling or managed elastic features that can replace failed capacity
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: Monitoring should produce useful signals and, where safe, trigger repeatable remediation instead of relying on manual observation of every component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

B: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate without making unrelated architecture changes.

C: Growth planning should combine replication and elastic scaling so the system maintains capacity and recovers automatically as demand changes. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

D: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

Question 6

Wide World Importers has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its machine learning inference service is to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload without making unrelated architecture changes. Which option is best? The current estate includes 31 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Analyze the stable post-rightsizing usage baseline, then purchase the commitment model that matches flexibility and term requirements
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths

Correct answer: C

Option review:

A: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

B: Commitments are most effective after rightsizing and when the organization understands which usage is predictably sustained. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

D: Monitoring should produce useful signals and, where safe, trigger repeatable remediation instead of relying on manual observation of every component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of without making unrelated architecture changes.

Question 7

While conducting a new workload design, the migration architect at Bellows University needs to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 38 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Why: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Option review:

A: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

C: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

D: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Learning point: Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture. Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Question 8

During a cost optimization workshop at Blue Yonder Airlines, the principal solutions architect is designing a IoT ingestion service. The requirement is to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 45 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Identify each required component that lacks redundancy and replace or redesign it with multi-AZ, managed HA, or redundant paths appropriate to the failure domain
Use Systems Manager Patch Manager or managed-service patching and policy-based backup services with compliance reporting and restore validation

Correct answer: B

Why: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Option review:

C: Reliability improves when critical single points of failure are removed and failover mechanisms match the intended failure scope. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

D: Patching and backups need defined schedules, scope, compliance evidence, isolation, and testing to be dependable security controls. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Learning point: Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics. Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Question 9

City Power operates a batch settlement service. In a global expansion project, the network architect must evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 5 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Analyze the stable post-rightsizing usage baseline, then purchase the commitment model that matches flexibility and term requirements
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use CloudTrail and AWS security/configuration services for traceability and findings, with AWS Config/EventBridge/automation for controlled remediation

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Option review:

A: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

C: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

D: Traceability, centralized findings, and safe automation help teams detect policy drift and reduce time to remediate recurring security issues. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Learning point: Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization. AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. In this variant, the decision also has to work while preserving the workload service objective during the improvement.

Question 10

A principal architect asks which AWS approach is intended to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks with a staged validation path before full rollout. What is the best answer? The current estate includes 12 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use Systems Manager Patch Manager or managed-service patching and policy-based backup services with compliance reporting and restore validation
Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

C: Patching and backups need defined schedules, scope, compliance evidence, isolation, and testing to be dependable security controls. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

D: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

Question 11

Southridge Video is changing its payment platform as part of a migration wave planning session. Which AWS approach best enables the team to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model with a staged validation path before full rollout? The current estate includes 19 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Identify each required component that lacks redundancy and replace or redesign it with multi-AZ, managed HA, or redundant paths appropriate to the failure domain
Test changes against performance and cost objectives using representative traffic, then adopt only changes that preserve required service levels
Adopt a deployment strategy with health checks, progressive exposure, and automated rollback that matches the application and capacity constraints
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics

Correct answer: D

Option review:

B: Optimization should be validated against the workload objectives so savings or speed improvements do not create new reliability or performance problems. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

C: Deployment improvements should reduce blast radius and make unhealthy releases detectable and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

D: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate with a staged validation path before full rollout.

Question 12

An architecture board at Woodgrove Bank asks the security architect to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload with a staged validation path before full rollout for a IoT ingestion service. Which recommendation is most appropriate? The current estate includes 26 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely

Correct answer: C

Option review:

B: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

D: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of with a staged validation path before full rollout.

Question 13

For a batch settlement service at Relecloud Systems, a security design review identifies one priority: use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while reducing repetitive manual operations. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 33 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths
Treat service quotas as reliability dependencies: monitor headroom, request increases early, and test recovery capacity in the target environment
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

B: Monitoring should produce useful signals and, where safe, trigger repeatable remediation instead of relying on manual observation of every component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

C: A redundant design is not reliable if quotas prevent it from scaling or failing over when needed. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

Question 14

Fabrikam Health has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its machine learning inference service is to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while reducing repetitive manual operations. Which option is best? The current estate includes 40 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Test changes against performance and cost objectives using representative traffic, then adopt only changes that preserve required service levels
Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it
Treat service quotas as reliability dependencies: monitor headroom, request increases early, and test recovery capacity in the target environment

Correct answer: A

Option review:

A: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while reducing repetitive manual operations.

B: Optimization should be validated against the workload objectives so savings or speed improvements do not create new reliability or performance problems. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

C: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

D: A redundant design is not reliable if quotas prevent it from scaling or failing over when needed. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

Question 15

Which solution is the strongest match for the following professional-level architecture requirement: evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while reducing repetitive manual operations? The current estate includes 47 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use observed growth trends to add replication, load balancing, and Auto Scaling or managed elastic features that can replace failed capacity
Store secrets in Secrets Manager or Parameter Store as appropriate, enforce least privilege, and review access against data sensitivity and regulatory requirements

Correct answer: A

Option review:

A: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while reducing repetitive manual operations.

C: Growth planning should combine replication and elastic scaling so the system maintains capacity and recovers automatically as demand changes. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

D: Secret management and least privilege reduce credential exposure and unnecessary authority, especially for regulated or sensitive workloads. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while reducing repetitive manual operations.

Question 16

During a architecture review at Northwind Media, the principal solutions architect is designing a IoT ingestion service. The requirement is to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 7 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Treat service quotas as reliability dependencies: monitor headroom, request increases early, and test recovery capacity in the target environment
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: A redundant design is not reliable if quotas prevent it from scaling or failing over when needed. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

C: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

Question 17

Coho Financial operates a batch settlement service. In a hybrid connectivity redesign, the network architect must test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change. Which option should be recommended? The current estate includes 14 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Treat service quotas as reliability dependencies: monitor headroom, request increases early, and test recovery capacity in the target environment
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use observed growth trends to add replication, load balancing, and Auto Scaling or managed elastic features that can replace failed capacity
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: B

Option review:

A: A redundant design is not reliable if quotas prevent it from scaling or failing over when needed. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

Question 18

A enterprise architect at Lamna Healthcare is reviewing a machine learning inference service. The business requires the team to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change. Which design most directly satisfies the requirement? The current estate includes 21 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it
Identify each required component that lacks redundancy and replace or redesign it with multi-AZ, managed HA, or redundant paths appropriate to the failure domain
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use Cost and Usage Reports or equivalent detailed billing data with cost-allocation tags, Budgets, and alarms to analyze transfer charges and assign ownership

Correct answer: C

Option review:

A: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

B: Reliability improves when critical single points of failure are removed and failover mechanisms match the intended failure scope. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

D: Granular billing data, allocation tags, and alerts provide the visibility needed to explain spend and drive accountable cost remediation. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while retaining AWS-native traceability for the change.

Question 19

Fourth Coffee is changing its payment platform as part of a new workload design. Which AWS approach best enables the team to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first? The current estate includes 28 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths
Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Use observed growth trends to add replication, load balancing, and Auto Scaling or managed elastic features that can replace failed capacity
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Option review:

A: Monitoring should produce useful signals and, where safe, trigger repeatable remediation instead of relying on manual observation of every component. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

B: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

C: Growth planning should combine replication and elastic scaling so the system maintains capacity and recovers automatically as demand changes. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

Question 20

Which AWS architecture principle or service combination best addresses this requirement for Consolidated Messenger: test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first? The current estate includes 35 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. Choose the option that best meets the stated constraints without introducing an unrelated redesign.

Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Test changes against performance and cost objectives using representative traffic, then adopt only changes that preserve required service levels
Perform a structured Well-Architected-style review using operational telemetry, security findings, and reliability evidence, then prioritize risks by business impact

Correct answer: A

Option review:

B: Configuration automation reduces drift, while failure exercises reveal gaps in monitoring, dependencies, and operational recovery knowledge. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

C: Optimization should be validated against the workload objectives so savings or speed improvements do not create new reliability or performance problems. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

D: Continuous improvement is most effective when recommendations are grounded in measurable risk and workload evidence across multiple architectural dimensions. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

Question 21

For a batch settlement service at Litware Manufacturing, a global expansion project identifies one priority: evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first. Which AWS design should the team choose? The current estate includes 42 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Assume all unspecified components already meet their requirements.

Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Adopt a deployment strategy with health checks, progressive exposure, and automated rollback that matches the application and capacity constraints
Use centralized CloudWatch observability with actionable alarms and event-driven or Systems Manager automation for known remediation paths

Correct answer: B

Option review:

B: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

C: Deployment improvements should reduce blast radius and make unhealthy releases detectable and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while prioritizing the highest-risk bottleneck first.

Question 22

Humongous Insurance has already validated the surrounding application components. The remaining architecture requirement for its machine learning inference service is to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload. Which option is best? The current estate includes 49 AWS accounts and active workloads in ap-southeast-1 and ap-southeast-2. Prefer an AWS-managed capability when it meets the requirements with less operational overhead.

Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Use Systems Manager or service-native configuration automation, and run controlled failure scenarios to validate recovery procedures
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture
Analyze the stable post-rightsizing usage baseline, then purchase the commitment model that matches flexibility and term requirements

Correct answer: C

Why: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Option review:

A: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

C: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

D: Commitments are most effective after rightsizing and when the organization understands which usage is predictably sustained. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Learning point: Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture. Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Question 23

While conducting a migration wave planning session, the migration architect at Tailspin Logistics needs to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload. Which architecture decision best matches the stated constraints? The current estate includes 9 AWS accounts and active workloads in eu-west-1 and eu-central-1. The team wants the most direct architecture decision for this requirement.

Analyze the stable post-rightsizing usage baseline, then purchase the commitment model that matches flexibility and term requirements
Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics
Use CloudTrail and AWS security/configuration services for traceability and findings, with AWS Config/EventBridge/automation for controlled remediation
Use Cost and Usage Reports or equivalent detailed billing data with cost-allocation tags, Budgets, and alarms to analyze transfer charges and assign ownership

Correct answer: B

Why: Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Option review:

A: Commitments are most effective after rightsizing and when the organization understands which usage is predictably sustained. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

C: Traceability, centralized findings, and safe automation help teams detect policy drift and reduce time to remediate recurring security issues. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

D: Granular billing data, allocation tags, and alerts provide the visibility needed to explain spend and drive accountable cost remediation. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to test whether a compute bottleneck needs a different instance family, placement strategy, or scaling model under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Learning point: Benchmark candidate instance families or scaling designs under representative load, then rightsize using observed CPU, memory, network, and storage characteristics. Rightsizing and high-performance compute choices should be validated against real workload characteristics and performance objectives. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Question 24

During a post-incident architecture review at Alpine Sports, the principal solutions architect is designing a IoT ingestion service. The requirement is to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload. Which architecture is the best fit? The current estate includes 16 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and us-west-2. The design must preserve security and auditability while meeting the stated objective.

Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Analyze the stable post-rightsizing usage baseline, then purchase the commitment model that matches flexibility and term requirements
Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization
Perform a structured Well-Architected-style review using operational telemetry, security findings, and reliability evidence, then prioritize risks by business impact

Correct answer: C

Why: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Option review:

A: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

C: AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

D: Continuous improvement is most effective when recommendations are grounded in measurable risk and workload evidence across multiple architectural dimensions. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to evaluate CloudFront, Global Accelerator, edge processing, or managed services for a latency-sensitive workload under the additional constraint of while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Learning point: Use the AWS global delivery or managed service that matches the workload protocol and access pattern, such as CloudFront for cacheable content or Global Accelerator for network-path optimization. AWS global and managed services can improve latency and reduce operational burden when selected for the application protocol and caching or routing model. In this variant, the decision also has to work while keeping rollback practical if the change regresses the workload.

Question 25

Following an acquisition, Adventure Works is rationalizing its batch settlement service. The architecture board documented two acceptance criteria: use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks; and the solution must do so while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry. Which target-state recommendation should the network architect approve? The current estate includes 23 AWS accounts and active workloads in us-east-1 and eu-west-1. Select the option that satisfies the requirement with the fewest unnecessary moving parts.

Use event-driven monitoring and approved automation runbooks for repeatable remediations, with logging, guardrails, and human approval where risk requires it
Identify each required component that lacks redundancy and replace or redesign it with multi-AZ, managed HA, or redundant paths appropriate to the failure domain
Use Cost Explorer, Compute Optimizer, Trusted Advisor, and service inventory data to identify idle or overprovisioned resources, then remove or rightsize them safely
Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture

Correct answer: D

Why: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

Option review:

A: Automation is most valuable for well-understood recurring actions when it remains observable, controlled, and reversible. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

B: Reliability improves when critical single points of failure are removed and failover mechanisms match the intended failure scope. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

C: Cost optimization begins by measuring utilization and identifying resources whose size or existence is not justified by workload demand. This can be valid in another AWS architecture context, but it does not most directly satisfy the primary requirement to use telemetry to distinguish database, network, compute, and dependency bottlenecks under the additional constraint of while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

D: Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. This directly addresses the primary requirement and remains appropriate while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

Learning point: Define measurable KPIs/SLOs, instrument the relevant components, and use CloudWatch or service metrics to isolate the actual bottleneck before changing architecture. Performance work should start with measurable objectives and evidence so remediation targets the limiting component rather than the most visible one. In this variant, the decision also has to work while basing the recommendation on observed utilization or telemetry.

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Question 20

Question 21

Question 22

Question 23

Question 24

Question 25

Related posts: