I got confused between B and D .
But realized that key to read the highlighted portion ..
the system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer'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.
To achieve the highlighted conclusion the assumption is the people who are entitled to get access are not stopped as well .
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 computer'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
(B) bases a general conclusion on a small amount of data
(C) fails to recognize that a security system based on voice recognition could easily have applications other than computer security
(D) ignores the possibility that the system sometimes denies access to people who are entitled to access
(E) states its conclusion in a heavily qualified way