#15 - A standard problem for computer security is that

[leslie7]

A new system that relies on recognizing the voices of "authorized" users avoids the problem

So i'm thinking if the computer accurately gives access only to authorized users based on their trial how can it deny access to those entitled

Answer choice D is correct only if we assume that not everyone who is "authorized" is captured by all those who are entitled. Meaning, we have to accept that somehow they are not authorizing everyone who is entitled to access the computer

What I am trying to say is that I think the stimulus addresses the fact that no one who is authorized/entitled will be denied access..

Unless I am mis understanding the question and this is a weakening question? I need help

[evelineliu]

Hi Leslie,

During initial testing, the voice recognition system never granted access to the incorrect person. We don't know, however, if the system consistently gave access to the people who were supposed to have it. From the evidence we have, we can't logically conclude that this system will allow a way of giving access to people who are entitled. We only know that it will probably keep out the ones who shouldn't have access.

Hope that helps,
Eveline

[Snomen]

Doesn't the premise part "the system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking..." mean that "it did always accepted correctly"?
Thank you in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Snomen,

Security systems have two different jobs. Keep out people who shouldn't get in, AND let in people that should get in. The argument here addresses only half of that. It keeps out the people that shouldn't get in by preventing unauthorized access. But it doesn't say anything about people that should be let in. Maybe the system is over restrictive. We don't know that the conclusion is valid---this system might not give authorized people access at all.

Hope that helps!

[emilyjmyer]

Hi!

Why is B incorrect? When reading the stimulus I noted that it said that there was a small sample and in my prephrase noted that that could be a flaw. I find myself repeatedly paraphrasing wrong in flaw questions.

Thanks!

Emily

[Robert Carroll]

Emily,

The conclusion isn't based on that small data. The author already says "if this result can be repeated", so if the small amount of data can't be extrapolated, there's no problem for the argument. The author's conclusion is already conditional on the small amount of data being something that can be generalized, so this is not a flaw in the argument, because the author already considered it.

Robert Carroll

[emilyjmyer]

Emily,

The conclusion isn't based on that small data. The author already says "if this result can be repeated", so if the small amount of data can't be extrapolated, there's no problem for the argument. The author's conclusion is already conditional on the small amount of data being something that can be generalized, so this is not a flaw in the argument, because the author already considered it.

Robert Carroll

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you!