Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Jul 2025, 09:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial? =>
So editorial is refuting the that the surge is malicious mobile apps is due to policy change by saying none of the culprits have added their apps in the independent marketplace. that mean. we need to weaken this and say that the increase in malicious apps is due to policy change. so lets see
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. => Resemblance app removed does not give any info whether it was due to same developers or other devs and it does not give any info whether this surge is due to app-store platform policies. hence not the ans
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. => Ok what independent market place had for resources to detect and remove is irrelevant even if they have more resources now then it does not weaken that this surge is due to culprits. so not the ans
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. => This gives us info that the surge is actually due to app-store policy change as after that new devs started targeting the independent market placess with fewer checks hence lets keep this.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. => Ok whether they co-ordinate or not it does not give us any info whether surge is due to policies or not so out of scope and not the ans
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. => Again the preference of users is irrelevant in finding out or weakning the argument hence not the ans
Hence Ans C
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial? =>
So editorial is refuting the that the surge is malicious mobile apps is due to policy change by saying none of the culprits have added their apps in the independent marketplace. that mean. we need to weaken this and say that the increase in malicious apps is due to policy change. so lets see
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. => Resemblance app removed does not give any info whether it was due to same developers or other devs and it does not give any info whether this surge is due to app-store platform policies. hence not the ans
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. => Ok what independent market place had for resources to detect and remove is irrelevant even if they have more resources now then it does not weaken that this surge is due to culprits. so not the ans
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. => This gives us info that the surge is actually due to app-store policy change as after that new devs started targeting the independent market placess with fewer checks hence lets keep this.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. => Ok whether they co-ordinate or not it does not give us any info whether surge is due to policies or not so out of scope and not the ans
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. => Again the preference of users is irrelevant in finding out or weakning the argument hence not the ans
Hence Ans C
08 Jul 2025, 10:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
let's check the options:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. This weakens the editorial's argument. If unrelated developers are creating malicious apps that mimic those removed from major platforms, it suggests they are exploiting a gap or demand created by the major platforms' restrictions. This provides an indirect link between the major platforms' actions and the surge, even if the original developers aren't directly involved.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
This explains why independent marketplaces might have more malicious apps in general, but it doesn't directly address the recent surge or link it specifically to the new restrictions on major platforms. It describes a pre-existing condition, not a cause for the increase.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
This option provides the strongest weakening of the editorial's argument. It offers an alternative mechanism through which the major platforms' restrictions could cause the surge. Even if the specific developers who were removed aren't making new apps, the new policy environment created by the major platforms (i.e., fewer compliance checks elsewhere becoming attractive) could cause other developers (these "new developer groups") to shift their activities to independent marketplaces specifically for malicious app distribution. This directly supports the commentators' general claim that the restrictions themselves are the cause of the surge, regardless of which specific developers are responsible.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
This is irrelevant to the core argument. Whether the platforms coordinated their policy changes doesn't affect whether those changes, individually or collectively, led to a surge on independent marketplaces.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This is also irrelevant. User preferences for official stores don't explain the surge of malicious apps on independent marketplaces or whether that surge is linked to the major platforms' restrictions.
(C) explicitly states that new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces due to fewer compliance checks immediately after the policy changes. This establishes a clear causal chain from the policy changes to the surge in malicious apps, even if the "culprits" are not the originally removed developers. It supports the spirit of the commentators' argument.
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. This weakens the editorial's argument. If unrelated developers are creating malicious apps that mimic those removed from major platforms, it suggests they are exploiting a gap or demand created by the major platforms' restrictions. This provides an indirect link between the major platforms' actions and the surge, even if the original developers aren't directly involved.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
This explains why independent marketplaces might have more malicious apps in general, but it doesn't directly address the recent surge or link it specifically to the new restrictions on major platforms. It describes a pre-existing condition, not a cause for the increase.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
This option provides the strongest weakening of the editorial's argument. It offers an alternative mechanism through which the major platforms' restrictions could cause the surge. Even if the specific developers who were removed aren't making new apps, the new policy environment created by the major platforms (i.e., fewer compliance checks elsewhere becoming attractive) could cause other developers (these "new developer groups") to shift their activities to independent marketplaces specifically for malicious app distribution. This directly supports the commentators' general claim that the restrictions themselves are the cause of the surge, regardless of which specific developers are responsible.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
This is irrelevant to the core argument. Whether the platforms coordinated their policy changes doesn't affect whether those changes, individually or collectively, led to a surge on independent marketplaces.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This is also irrelevant. User preferences for official stores don't explain the surge of malicious apps on independent marketplaces or whether that surge is linked to the major platforms' restrictions.
(C) explicitly states that new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces due to fewer compliance checks immediately after the policy changes. This establishes a clear causal chain from the policy changes to the surge in malicious apps, even if the "culprits" are not the originally removed developers. It supports the spirit of the commentators' argument.
08 Jul 2025, 10:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Notes:
Surge in malicious mobile apps on market place is from restrictions on main marketplace
Yet- Noone removed from main has published a app on other market places
What most seriously weakens argument:
Solve:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
Shows that the malicious apps look like the ones removed - a good contender
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
Doesn't address recent surge or if policy change on main market could of done it
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
Shows that people started making these apps rite after policy changes. Strong contender!
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
Does nothing for argument
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
Irrelevant
C connects the time and policy change with the surge in new apps.
Answer: C
Surge in malicious mobile apps on market place is from restrictions on main marketplace
Yet- Noone removed from main has published a app on other market places
What most seriously weakens argument:
Solve:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
Shows that the malicious apps look like the ones removed - a good contender
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
Doesn't address recent surge or if policy change on main market could of done it
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
Shows that people started making these apps rite after policy changes. Strong contender!
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
Does nothing for argument
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
Irrelevant
C connects the time and policy change with the surge in new apps.
Answer: C
Bunuel
