#9- Consumer advocate: Last year’s worldwide alarm about a

[Johnclem]

Hello,
Is the main conclusion here the first or the last sentence ?


Thanks
John

[Adam Tyson]

Bouncing this one back to you, John. What do you think, and why? The main conclusion is the thing that gets all the support and gives none. Which of these fits that description, if either of them does? Simplify the argument down to those two sentences, and ask yourself which one supports the other, and you should have your answer.

[Johnclem]

I would say the conclusion is the first sentence: here is my thought process

1- companies raised a worldwide concern
2- only about 1000 cases of damage were reported
3- multitude programs sold .
4- intermediate: warnings were clearly only in an effort to stimulate sales.

c: Last years introduced computer program was a fraud :


Thank you
John

[Adam Tyson]

I agree! I think the claim that the warning was only to stimulate sales supports the claim that it was a fraud, and not vice versa. Good job, nice analysis!

[cutiepie]

Why cant answer B be another reason why the argument is flawed. "Companies selling programs to protect computers against such viruses" this part of the stimulus got me to hold B as a contender, because even if only about a thousand cases were reported, the programs still has a purpose; to protect from other kinds of viruses.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi again pie,

The problem with answer choice (B) is that the argument already acknowledges that it could be more than just the one program. That's why it says that the programs protect against "viruses," not a specific virus only. Since the author already considers that there are multiple viruses that a program could protect against, answer choice (B) cannot be correct.

Hope that helps!