joshnsit wrote:
Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no printing expertise to counterfeit paper currency. One standard anti counterfeiting technique, microprinting, prints paper currency with tiny designs that cannot be photocopied distinctly. Although counterfeits of micro printed currency can be detected easily by experts, such counterfeits often circulate widely before being detected. An alternative , though more costly, printing technique would print currency with a special ink. Currency printed with the ink would change color depending on how ordinary light strikes it, whereas photocopied counterfeits of such currency would not. Because this technique would allow anyone to detect photocopied counterfeit currency easily, it should be adopted instead of micro printing, despite the expense.
Which one of the following, if true, provides the most undermines the argument?
A) The longer the interval between the time a counterfeit bill passes into circulation and the time for counterfeit is detected, the more difficult it is for law law enforcement officials to apprehend the counterfeiter.
B) Sophisticated counterfeiters could produce currency printed with the special ink but cannot duplicate microprinted currency exactly.
C) Further advances in photocopying technology will dramatically increases the level of details that photocopies can reproduce.
D) The largest quantities of counterfeit currency now entering circulation are produced by ordinary criminals who engage in counterfeiting only briefly.
E) It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of what costs to society would be if large amounts of counterfeit currency circulated widely.
Please give your justification for every choice. OA to come later.
A gives another reason to think the proposal is good, not bad, since microprinted bills are often undetected for long periods of time.
C is about how well photocopiers can reproduce detail. C does not talk about whether photocopiers will be able to reproduce the special ink. So C suggests that photocopiers might become better at reproducing microprinting in the future, and supports the recommendation to use special ink.
D suggests that counterfeiters don't go to great effort to produce counterfeit money. At present, you can just photocopy the microprinted money, but if real money had features, like special ink, that were difficult to copy without going to great effort, D suggests that many counterfeiters won't go to the trouble. So D also supports the recommendation to use special ink.
E is irrelevant, since the argument says the proposal should be adopted regardless of cost, so we don't care what the costs are.
B is correct. B suggests that good counterfeiters will be able to successfully counterfeit bills with special ink, but not bills with microprinting. That's a pretty good reason to stick with microprinting, or else you could end up with a lot of undetectable counterfeit money in circulation.
_________________
http://www.ianstewartgmat.com