A computer equipped with signature-recognition software, which restric

Sure thing!

Consider some alternate examples:

• "Even the strongest weightlifters cannot lift more weight than our robotic crane."
• "Even the most experienced human chess players cannot beat this new computer chess player."
• "Even the most skilled hackers cannot break the adaptive encryption algorithm."

Each of these sentences presents the BEST members of one particular group (weight lifters, human chess players, hackers), then states that those best-in-class individuals CANNOT outperform or defeat some other thing (robotic crane, computer chess player, adaptive encryption algorithm).

In other words, no matter how strong, experienced, or skilled these individuals are, they (and the rest of their group) will NEVER do better than the opponents that are listed.

Now, here's the original statement from the passage again:


By definition, if we've identified the MOST adept forgers, then it is impossible for any other forger to be more adept than those who are most adept.

This means that NO forgers are adept enough to duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes, and NO amount of forgery skill will enable a forger to outsmart that program.

I hope this helps!

Understanding & Analyzing the Passage

“A computer equipped with signature-recognition software.”

• The passage talks about a computer that is equipped with signature – recognition software.
• It is a type of software that acts as a security measure by analyzing a signature and its characteristics before allowing access to the user.

“which restricts access to a computer to those people whose signatures are on file.”

• This signature – recognition software restricts access to a computer to people who have signatures on file. This means that the software analyses different characteristics of a signature and then gives access to a user.

“identifies a person’s signature by analyzing not only the form of the signature but also such characteristics as pen pressure and signing speed.”

How does this software work?
• The software analyses the form of the signature, pen pressure, and signing speed to determine whether the signature is legit or not.

“Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyses.”

• The author states that the SRS (Signature Recognition Software) cannot be bypassed, even by people who are good at forging signatures since the software analyses various characteristics of a signature.


Pre - thinking


We need to find a logical conclusion for the argument.

Let’s first analyze the premise of the argument to draw a logical conclusion.
• SRS restricts access to a computer whose signature is on file.
• The software (SRS) identifies a signature via three key characteristics:
o Analyses the form of the signature
o Analyses the pen pressure
o Analyses the signing speed.
• And even adept forgers cannot duplicate the characteristics of a signature that the software analyses.
Thus, we can logically conclude that the SRS software ensures that people with the skill to bypass or cheat, cannot gain access to the computers equipped with SRS.

Analyse the Answer Choices


(A) The time it takes to record and analyze a signature makes the software impractical for everyday use. INCORRECT
o The practicality of the software is not talked about in the passage. The passage talks about the features and the result of the software. There is no information about the time and practicality of the software. Thus, this option cannot be the conclusion.

(B) Computers equipped with the software will soon be installed in most banks. INCORRECT
o Although the software is a security measure, we cannot be certain that most banks would install this software. This option provides information that is out of scope since the passage does not talk about the software being installed or used in most banks.

(C) Nobody can gain access to a computer equipped with the software solely by virtue of skill at forging signatures. CORRECT
o This option is in line with our pre-thinking. As stated in the passage, even adept forgers will not be able to duplicate the signatures without getting caught by the software.

(D) Signature-recognition software has taken many years to develop and perfect. INCORRECT
o This option talks about the time taken to develop the software, which is again out of scope since nothing about this is stated in the passage. Thus, no information in the passage can justify this claim.

(E) In many cases even authorized users are denied legitimate access to computers equipped with the software. INCORRECT
o This option gives information that cannot be backed by any point in the passage. The passage does not give information about the experience of authorized users. Thus, this option is out of scope.

A person merely has a skill forging a signature will not get access to the computer, because the has pressure determination ability too. Thus the answer is C.

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Please evaluate my reasoning for option E.

(E) In many cases even authorized users are denied legitimate access to computers equipped with the software.

We can eliminate option E on the basis that we don’t know the success rate of the software.
By success rate I mean, out of 10 times I login, how many times would the software let me in.
Hence, we cannot conclude that will legitimate users be denied access or not?

All I can conclude from the given argument is that forgers will not be able to access based on their forgery skill alone (perhaps combined with technical skills, if they are able to disable the software, they may be able to access - we don't know and we are not given).
Whether legit users can recreate the same signature pattern along with the same pressure and speed etc every time, we are not given. So we can say nothing about how convenient or inconvenient it will be for legit users to use. Hence we cannot infer (E).

KarishmaB Ma'am,
Option E is talking about being denied access by the software or not. How is convenient to use related to this?
Can you please elaborate.
The passage does not talk about any skills of forgers. How can we conclude that?
Please elaborate on this too.

Please note that the argument is looking for an inference - something you can infer from the given data. It should give no new information.

The argument tells us "Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes."
That no matter what the skill level of forgers, they cannot duplicate all characteristics analysed. We need to take it to be true.
So we can conclude that no matter what their skill level, they cannot access another's computer by forging the signature. This is option (C)

We cannot infer (E) from the argument. The argument doesn't mention whether people are able to duplicate all characteristics every time they try to legit access their own computers. The argument mentions nothing about people accessing their own systems. It only comments on forgers trying to access other people's systems.
So (E) cannot be a conclusion of the argument.

Hello experts, ThatDudeKnows AndrewN

First of all its a conclusion question or inference question (for inference we need to stick strictly to what is given),

I thought we have to come up with a conclusion,
Since author is focusing on - how sophisticated the software is because of pressure and speed

Hence author can further say that since its so advance and strict

In many cases even authorized users are denied legitimate access to computers equipped with the software. E could be right!

How to attempt a conclusion question, Is the process same as Inference?
because if we approach this as an inference question C is absolutly correct.

Hello, dcoolguy. I would not worry too much about the label attached to the question: you will not be granted that luxury on test day anyway. Rather, focus on just what the question stem is asking you to do:


This is definitely a type of inference question. In fact, I could see another question swapping out concluded for inferred, with no other changes. (In general, when your task is to supply a conclusion, the last line cuts off mid-sentence.)

On the basis of the final sentence of the passage, we can deduce that (C) must be correct:


Answer choice (E) could be true, but nothing in the passage suggests that authorized users are ever denied legitimate access. The assertion at the end of the passage names forgers only, so we need to stick to forgers to avoid speculation.

Perhaps the question makes a bit more sense to you now. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Hi dcoolguy!

Andrew and I generally agree.

On conclusion vs. inference question, a few clues that GMAC usually follows:
1. If they ask for the author's conclusion or the company's conclusion or the government's conclusion, you're probably looking at a conclusion question. If they ask for something that could be concluded from the passage, you're probably looking at an inference question.
2. Closely associated with the above, there's a difference between THE conclusion (conclusion) and A conclusion (inference). The latter can be concluded, but it isn't the conclusion.
3. The word "logically" in the question stem points to inference. Not always, but usually.

Okay, on to the question.

If the argument were only the last sentence and we make a tiny tweak to answer choice C:
Argument: "Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes."
Answer choice C: "Nobody can gain access to a computer equipped with the softwareprogram solely by virtue of skill at forging signatures."
Sounds pretty good!

As for answer choice E, if the program is REALLY good at accomplishing its goal, this won't be the case. If you happened to have one of the first laptops that had fingerprint recognition decades ago, you know that they were finicky and it could be a challenge to get into your own machine. Nowadays, the phones that have fingerprint recognition are really good at it. As Andrew noted, E could be true but we can't conclude that it is.

GMATNinja KarishmaB b can you please explain why option b is wrong?

(B) Computers equipped with the software will soon be installed in most banks

New information cannot be a conclusion. Nowhere in the passage do they say that banks are going to install this software.
What if it is too expensive? What if it takes too much and hence becomes impractical for banking purposes? What if it is not compatible with the current banking softwares? Just because it is good in one aspect, we cannot say that the banks will install it. Even if it were the best in every aspect, we still cannot say whether a bank will install it. We cannot conclude what the banks will do in the future.

A, B, D are easy kills.
Lets take C. Suppose you're great at forging signatures and come to know of a bank where your great great grandpa kept $500 mn dollar and now you can claim it provided you reproduce his signature. Not very difficult! You take a look at his signature, pick up a blank piece of paper, practice few times and voila! Now you can reproduce his signature in an almost identical way. You go to bank, the teller asks you to sign on the iPad which has this particular software installed, you confidently sign and the software gives error beeps, not recognizing the signature!!! That's what happened just now. The software also takes into account how much pressure one applies when signing and the speed of signing. Guess its not only about that particular style/shape/form in which one signs, there's more to what meets the eye. This is exactly what C says that if someone just looks at the signature of somebody else, even the best of the forgers will not know how much pressure was applied, what was the speed while transitioning from one alphabet within signature to another. And software detects such parameters, making it impossible to crack by just putting a signature.
E - This could be true. But we don't know 2 things- whether the software is so super sensitive that it cannot account for slight natural variations to one's own signature and if few people can always have variations in pen pressure and signing speed thus making it difficult for software to recognize them. We are not sure about these scenarios so better stay away from this option.