A standard problem for computer security is that passwords that have to be typed on a computer keyboard are comparatively easy for unauthorized users to steal or guess. A new system that relies on recognizing the voices of authorized users apparently avoids this problem. In a small initial trial, the system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computerâ€™s data. Clearly, if this result can be repeated in an operational setting, then there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and to no one else.
The reasoning above is flawed because it
(A) makes a faulty comparison, in that a security system based on voice recognition would not be expected to suffer from the same problems as one that relied on passwords entered from a keyboard
>> You can never steal or guess someone else's voice. Thus the comparison is not faulty. (Incorrect)
(B) bases a general conclusion on a small amount of data
>> It is true that the conclusion of the stem is based on a small initial trial, but the stem does not draw its conclusion directly from the initial trial. Its conclusion is effective, as is already shown in the stem, under a certain condition - "if the same result can be repeated in operational settings". (Incorrect)
(C) fails to recognize that a security system based on voice recognition could easily have applications other than computer security
>> What's wrong with easily having applications? This seems out of scope. (Incorrect)
(D) ignores the possibility that the system sometimes denies access to people who are entitled to access
>> I guess this is the best answer. Even though it is true that the voice security system can dispel unauthorized access, it would not be useful if it sometimes denies access to authorized people. (Correct
(E) states its conclusion in a heavily qualified way
>> It does not. (Incorrect)
Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !