The general availability of high-quality electronic scanners

"E". They have adopted this process to distinguish the original ones from the counterfeit ones assuming that this process will not be imitated in the near future. However if the forgerers are able to mimic this pattern also then this particular technique would fail to achieve the desired result.

In order to deter such counterfeiting, several banks plan to issue to their corporate customers checks that contain dots too small to be accurately duplicated by any electronic scanner currently available
Whenever we see something like "presently" or "currently available" in the premise, then we should start thinking about an answer which talks about the future or any tech that can be invented so that the same condition does not prevail in the future. Hence (E) stands out from the rest of the options.

I am not clear on this one. Here is my understanding:

We are being asked for a questionable assumption. Is an assumption = questionable assumption? How?

Doesn't a questionable assumption mean an assumption/statement that can be questioned upon / weakness to the conclusion?

If I assume that my understanding is correct, I am able to reach E. But, if we are actually looking for an assumption, then how can E be an assumption?
E says - Size of the smallest dots will not decrease (but we actually want them to decrease further and make the dots small in order to accord to the plan - if it has be an asssumption. Is that not correct? - yes, it is not correct. why would you want to decrease the size of the dots and accord to the plan be able to duplicate the dots and allow counterfeiting? Understood that E is an assumption.)
Question says - the plan is to make the dots soo small that it cannot be reproduced by current scanners.

However, option C says - Smallest dots can be seen by magnification (this acts as a strengthener, not as an assumption though - Is this correct? No, it isn't. To avoid counterfeiting, it can be assumed that these small dots cannot be distinguished/seen in anyway. What I mentioned earlier is a weakener in fact, not strengthener).

Please explain.

Understood after some contemplation. Mistake was:
What did the question say? to avoid counterfeiting, plan is to make the dots smaller so that it cannot be duplicated by the current available scanners
What did I interpret? To avoid counterfeiting, Need to look for an option that makes the dots smaller. [WRONG] Making the dots smaller by currently available scanners will allow counterfeiting (contradictory).

This question still remains: Questionable assumption = Assumption, not weaken. How?

Ans to this question should be C and not E .

Option E says :
the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce
accurately will not decrease significantly in the near future

Its talk about the accuracy of the scanner that available in the market at present . Future scope is the size will not be decrease to gaze the correct size of the smallest dot .

But in the argument it is given that size of the dot is decreased . Hence it is not possible for the scanner currently available in the market to spot it and produce fake checks .

Hence E is wrong .

Lets check C
the smallest dots on the proposed checks cannot be distinguished visually except under
strong magnification

Under the naked eye it not possible to check but under strong magnification . It is possible to check the dots .
Hence idea of introducing new Check will not meet the proposed plan .

Hence C is correct ans .

Regards,

Press Kudos if you like the post .

The general availability of high-quality electronic scanners and color printers for computers has made the counterfeiting of checks much easier. In order to deter such counterfeiting, several banks plan to issue to their corporate customers checks that contain dots too small to be accurately duplicated by any electronic scanner currently available; when such checks are scanned and printed, the dots seem to blend together in such a way that the word “VOID” appears on the check.

Conclusion - The new checks with smaller dots will be able to deter the counterfeiting of checks. (it is not a very short term plan)
What are we looking for - Something which is must for the conclusion to be true. Note - with the current tech. - printers and scanners if used to print new checks will print them with VOID. Passage doesn't talk about any technological advancements.

A questionable assumption of the plan is that

(A) in the territory served by the banks the proportion of counterfeit checks that are made using electronic scanners has remained approximately constant over the past few years
-- Irrelevant.

(B) most counterfeiters who use electronic scanners counterfeit checks only for relatively large amounts of money
-- Irrelevant

(C) the smallest dots on the proposed checks cannot be distinguished visually except under strong magnification
-- Irrelevant- Question is not - whether we can distinguish by looking or not.

(D) most corporations served by these banks will not have to pay more for the new checks than for traditional checks
-- Again , we are not concerned about corporations have to pay.

(E) the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will not decrease significantly in the near future
-- Inline with our thinking. Must be true for the conclusion to be true. This is the correct answer.

Let's break down our passage.
1. printers/scanners make faking checks easier
2. to deter fakes, banks will issue small-dot checks
3. scanning/printing small-dot checks doesn't work

We're asked to identify an assumption of the plan, and as the logic given in the passage is extremely clear, we'll first try to infer it and only then look to the answers.
This is a Precise approach.

In particular, there are 2 main claims. The first is that the small-dot checks will deter fakes. This assumes that, currently, fakes are created by scanning and subsequently printing existing checks, which is nowhere mentioned in the passage and is therefore a likely answer. The other main claim is that today's printers are technically unable to scan and print the 'small-dot' checks. For this to be relevant, we need to assume that tomorrow's printers won't be significantly better than today's.

Looking over our answers, (E) is equivalent to the second assumption we identified and is our best answer.

Hi David,

I am not able to digest this. Could you please help me here?
The question asks for a questionable assumption.
Let's break the argument.

• The general availability of high quality ES and CP has made CF easier
• Several Banks plan to issue to their C Banks customer checks that contain dots too small
• These dots are too small to be accurately duplicated by "any electronic scanner currently" available.
• When checks are scanned and printed,
• The dot seems to blend together in such a way that the word "Void" appears.

Now,
As per the plan, the Banks want that the counterfeiting should not happen.

i) In future no electronic device will come up to scan this
ii) The "VOID" can be seen even if the checks are duplicate
a. Meaning while passing checks, there is no requirement for check with precision.

Now if we negate the second pre-assumption, we come up with option C, which says that the naked eye can't detect the difference. Is it not questionable? Please help….

dear DavidTutorexamPAL
would you please elaborate further?
for me, fakes are created by scanning and subsequently printing existing checks is actually stated in the argument. I thought it is the same as The general availability of high-quality electronic scanners and color printers for computers has made the counterfeiting of checks much easier

I think I must miss something, please help.

Issue checks that contain dots too small to be accurately duplicated by any electronic scanner currently available
the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will not decrease significantly in the near future
Whether an assumption questions contains an argument or a plan, you should be able to tackle it the same way you tackle a regular assumption question in that the correct answer choice, when negated, will weaken the argument.

Negated:
the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will decrease significantly in the near future.

This negated statement weakens the argument because if generally available electronic scanners ARE able to accurately reproduce cheques containing smaller dots, THEN the plan falls through because the banks would be issuing cheques that have the same sized dots as the THEN available counterfeited cheques.

C is incorrect because it says the smallest dots on the proposed checks cannot be distinguished visually except under strong magnification.

So the proposed checks cannot be distinguished given a particular circumstance. However, why can't banks simply use strong magnification all the time? C is not a questionable assumption of the plan.

E tells us the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will not decrease significantly in the near future.

This is a questionable assumption; we certainly don't know whether counterfeiting will continue to evolve. E is the answer.

Hi expert

My query is w.r.t option E
I am unable to infer how decrease in size of smallest dots would shatter our conclusion.

Per my understanding - currently dots are too small to be duplicated. An answer choice which says that a technology which can even read such small dots will cast a doubt on our conclusion. Option E says size of dots will not decrease, when negated - it says size of dots will decrease, wouldn't that make even tougher for the new technologies to duplicate ?

Thanks, Devansh

Thank you for explaining your reasoning, Devansh. Look at answer choice E again:



Does that they the size of the dots will decrease? The size of WHICH dots? In Critical Reasoning, 'modifiers' are hugely important. What modifier do you notice in that sentence?

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP
Thank you for your response!

Option E: the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accuratelywill not decrease significantly in the near future

So we have an essential modifier in bold and underline starting from "that.....accurately". That, being a relative pronoun, refers to the size of smallest dots.
If I just cast this modifier aside, I have the following sentence:

The size of the smallest dots.... will not decrease significantly in the near future. This is where I get stuck!! I am probably not reading something correctly

Best, Devansh

Why do you think you can 'cast that modifier' aside? You said so yourself: it is an *essential modifier*. Essential modifiers are ESSENTIAL for the meaning of the sentence.

It's a specific kind of 'smallest dot' that will not decrease. The modifier tells you exactly which 'smallest dots' we're talking about.

For the purposes of checking core sentence structure in an SC question, the difference in 'essential' and 'non-essential' modifiers doesn't matter. But when it comes to getting precise meaning of a sentence--vital, all throughout the test--you can't throw out essential modifiers!

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP

I looked at the argument with a fresh mind again.
Putting it all together, option E says that the size of the dots that can be duplicated by scanners/printers is not going to decrease and since current scanners can not duplicate these dots, the only way to duplicate these dots is when the technology improves or scanners/printers become any better.

The only scenario in which dot size is going to decrease (negated version) is when the technology improves. Since, we are assuming that dot size won't decrease that means the technology wont improve either and we already know that current technology is incapable to do so. Hence, our assumption.

Please feel free to point out any error in my reasoning here and many thanks for persisting with me on this

Best, Devansh

This is good. But you lose me here:



To sum this up, the plan relies on dots so small scanners can't scan them without 'lumping' them together into something that spells 'void.' This won't work if scanners get more precise and can scan smaller dots.

Answer E isn't about the dots *themselves* getting smaller, it's about the size of dots that the *scanners can accurately scan* getting smaller. It could be rewritten as "Scanner technology will not improve such that it can accurately scan smaller dots than current scanners are able to."

Hi,

I think answer E is completely incorrect. It contradicts a main premise in the argument.

It says " dots too small to be accurately duplicated by any electronic scanner currently available" There are no current available scanners that can duplicate the "NEW DOTS"

Answer E explains ... since the size of the smallest dots that current electronic scanners can accurately reproduce won't decrease then checks could be counterfeited ?

Incorrect conclusion.