#4 - Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals

[moshei24]

(A) strengthens the fact that we should use the special ink technique, right? It's not strengthening the reason given in the stimulus for using that technique, but rather it's giving us an additional reason? Also, one might have thought that maybe we should use the micro-printing instead, but this gives us more reason to not use it, because it costs more than just the price of making that type of paper.

Can someone clarify this question for me a little bit please? Is my reasoning correct?

I feel that the question assumes that the ease of detecting with the special ink is of more importance than the fact that the other technique is cheaper, so by telling us that it may not be as cheap as we originally thought once you take the other factors into account, that assumption is strengthened because if we already assume that ease of detection is more important than cheaper price, then if the cheaper price is no longer so cheap, it would strengthen even more the fact that each of importance is of higher weight.

The conclusion is that it should be adopted despite the expense, so by showing the expense is even more we're strengthening that?

Sorry for all the long questions. If you could clear this one up for, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

-Moshe

[Dave Killoran]

You've pretty much got this one nailed down. The conclusion, as you noted, comes at the end where they note it should be adopted despite the expense.

Answer choice (A) operates by attacking the alternative. To strengthen an argument like this, they could have chosen to further strengthen the option they chose, but they also can attack the option they didn't choose. In this case, they are able to add costs to the "cheaper" option, thereby negating that advantage.

Overall, I'd say you understood this question extremely well. Congrats!

[moshei24]

Thank you.

[est15]

I was deciding between A and B for this question. While I see that A decreases the incentive for microprinting, I thought the fact that the conclusion states "despite the expense" meant that we shouldn't be considering cost as a factor in the answer choices. Why can we still consider cost as a factor?

Could you also explain why answer choice B is wrong?

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi est15!

When the author states "despite the expense," she is not saying that cost is not a factor. Rather, she is saying that the benefits of the special ink outweigh the costs of that ink. Answer choice (A) supports that conclusion by showing that, even though the microprinting technique is cheaper in terms of the manufacturing of currency, it has significant added costs because experts are the only ones who can detect the counterfeits. This strengthens the author's conclusion that we should use special ink instead of microprinting.

Answer choice (B), on the other hand, does not strengthen the conclusion that we should use special ink over microprinting. Answer choice (B) just tells us that we should broadcast the use of anticounterfeiting measures and keep which methods are used secret but that has nothing to do with whether we should use special ink over microprinting.

Remember to always focus on the conclusion!

Hope this helps

Best,
Kelsey

[ncolicci11]

Dear Powerscore,

I am confused about how A strengthens this argument. Particularly, I do not understand how it demonstrates that the added costs are significant because experts are the only ones who can detect counterfeits.

Any deeper explanation of A would be very helpful!

thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi ncolicci11!

Answer choice (A) tells us that "the costs of inspection by experts adds significantly to the cost to society of that technique." So the answer choice is basically telling us that, although the cost of printing might be less with microprinting than with the special ink, relying on experts to detect the microprinting counterfeits (which, according to the stimulus, "often circulate widely before being detected") ends up costing society more in the long run. Basically, it's this idea that because the microprinting counterfeits can only be detected by experts, they circulate more widely and cause more damage to society than the special ink counterfeits which can be detected by anyone and, therefore, aren't able to inflict as much damage on society. So since the microprinting method has all of these added costs to society, it strengthens the conclusion that we should use the microprinting method instead.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[rwraulynaitis]

Hi PowerScore,

I see how (A) is correct, but I do not see how (C) is incorrect. If microprinting involves fewer steps than does the special ink process, wouldn't that mean that using microprinting is easier than the special ink for counterfeiters, and thus strengthen the argument that we should adopt the special ink method?

[Adam Tyson]

Fewer steps does not automatically translate to easier, rwraulynaitis. The steps might be very complicated, or the special ink might be impossible for counterfeiters to obtain even if using it would be easier. It might be just two steps vs three, but those two steps are incredibly difficult while the three steps are all very easy.

Also, if you are going to think about the ease for counterfeiters, why not also think about the ease, and cost, for the people printing the real money. Maybe if microprinting has fewer steps it might make it more attractive for the folks printing the real stuff, potentially weakening the argument that we should switch to the special ink? That answer could cut both ways, making it even worse.

Try not to make assumptions like that, equating two different ideas that are do not mean the same thing. That's where they will want to trap you!