PT1.S3.Q15 - Computer operating system software

jkmiscx

Why is the Answer B? What rules out C? Thanks
Help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

LSAT Lizard

For this one we want to support the conclusion "Therefore, it is advisable for businesses to implement [minor variations into its operating system software]."

Whatever AC we pick is going to either make introducing the variations sound like a good idea, or make failing to introduce the variations sound like a bad idea.

AC A) Standardization of operating software is the opposite of introducing variations to it- you could even refer to the thing being encouraged by the conclusion as 'minor nonstandardization.' So AC A is saying that failing to follow the conclusion's advice caused different businesses to benefit from increased computer compatibility. That's the opposite of supporting the conclusion; it provides some support for ignoring the conclusion.

AC B) From the premises, we know that following the conclusion and introducing minor software variation means that whenever a virus gets onto one computer, that virus is far less likely to spread to other computers in the company compared to if the variations were never introduced. The conclusion is advising a preventive measure against viruses.

But the stimulus doesn't tell us anything about the cost of creating the minor variations in the first place- what if you need a super expensive specialist to do it for you, and they charge a ton for each computer? Maybe it's true that it would help prevent viruses, but it's so expensive that it would overall be cheaper to just not prevent the spread of viruses and spend less money to clean them up afterwards. AC B is removing that possibility by stating that actually, using preventive measures is always cheaper than waiting until the viruses have already gotten in and then cleaning them up. It supports the idea that doing things to prevent viruses has at least one advantage over not doing things to prevent viruses: cost. And since our conclusion is advising the use of a virus preventing tactic, that supports our conclusion a bit too.

AC C) Introducing variations to the software does not cause "any loss of computer compatibility." But AC C is telling us something about incompatible systems. It's just completely off topic, we don't care if incompatible systems are cheap or not.

AC D) Alright, so some viruses exist that the advice from the conclusion does nothing to mitigate. Oh well- nothing is perfect- so it doesn't really hurt the conclusion. But it does nothing to help support the conclusion either; it has nothing to say about the conclusion except "in some contexts it doesn't matter if you have software variation or not."

AC E) Okay, some businesses don't care about preventing the spread of viruses across their networks because they don't need networks in the first place. Good for them I guess, and those places don't need to follow the advice from the conclusion. That even weakens the conclusion a bit, by showing that it isn't necessarily advisable across all businesses.