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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
09 Jul 2025, 06:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Main argument seems to be opposing the commentators's view that the rise of malicious apps is due to the restrictions. How it opposes- by saying that none of the developers in the major platforms have released any apps in the new marketplace.
Gap in argument - assuming that just because the old developers have not released any malicious apps, new developers (who are unrelated) have not released any malicious apps seeing the policy changes. We need something to prove tha the causal relation between policy changes and rise in malicious apps DOES exist.
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers - keep. Talks about malicious apps developed by unrelated developers - this weakens the argument by indicating a causal link - as it suggests that new developers began uploading similar malicious apps , when their legitimate versions were removed from the major platforms. This presents the causal link of policy changes > rise of malicious apps. This strengthens the commentators view and weakens the editorial's stance by saying it does not have to be the same developers on both platforms, it could be unrelated developers responsible for the malicious apps.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do - eliminate. Detection and removal of malicious apps is irrelevant to the argument and does not weaken or affect the argument.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks -eliminate. While this might seem tempting due to the mention of how new developers started distributing apps after policy changes- indicating a possible causal relation- it does not mention malicious apps at all. This is a huge flaw in this answer choice- what type of apps do the new developers start uploading? "Fewer compliance checks" does not mean the apps have to be malicious. Hence this is not as strong an answer choice as A.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another - eliminate. Whether the platforms coordinated the policy changes amongst themselves is irrelevant to the argument and does not help prove the causal link between policy change and rise of malicious apps.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes - eliminate. Focus of argument is on rise of malicious apps- what the users do after the apps are distributed on the platforms is irrelevant to the argument.
Answer is A
Gap in argument - assuming that just because the old developers have not released any malicious apps, new developers (who are unrelated) have not released any malicious apps seeing the policy changes. We need something to prove tha the causal relation between policy changes and rise in malicious apps DOES exist.
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers - keep. Talks about malicious apps developed by unrelated developers - this weakens the argument by indicating a causal link - as it suggests that new developers began uploading similar malicious apps , when their legitimate versions were removed from the major platforms. This presents the causal link of policy changes > rise of malicious apps. This strengthens the commentators view and weakens the editorial's stance by saying it does not have to be the same developers on both platforms, it could be unrelated developers responsible for the malicious apps.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do - eliminate. Detection and removal of malicious apps is irrelevant to the argument and does not weaken or affect the argument.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks -eliminate. While this might seem tempting due to the mention of how new developers started distributing apps after policy changes- indicating a possible causal relation- it does not mention malicious apps at all. This is a huge flaw in this answer choice- what type of apps do the new developers start uploading? "Fewer compliance checks" does not mean the apps have to be malicious. Hence this is not as strong an answer choice as A.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another - eliminate. Whether the platforms coordinated the policy changes amongst themselves is irrelevant to the argument and does not help prove the causal link between policy change and rise of malicious apps.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes - eliminate. Focus of argument is on rise of malicious apps- what the users do after the apps are distributed on the platforms is irrelevant to the argument.
Answer is A
09 Jul 2025, 07:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument:
Com.: Mal app inc (Concl) because new restriction by major app store platforms.(Premise)
Developer removed from major platform didn't release app on alt marketplace.
Prethinking
What can weaken the argument? Maybe they werent actually removed? Or maybe they are done with the work? We need to attack that policy
Answers:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. (This strenghthens the arguement by saying mal apps actually increased due to policy change, so no)
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. (Okay, but this doesnt weaken, it just says independent market place cant detect malicious apps similar to major market places)
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. (But this would increase malicious apps due to policy change so this strengthen not weaken the assumption)
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. (This seems about okay, since they didnt coordinate so they are still selling over major platforms and increse in malicious apps are not the reason for increase)
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. (Not cocerned with users)
Answer D
Com.: Mal app inc (Concl) because new restriction by major app store platforms.(Premise)
Developer removed from major platform didn't release app on alt marketplace.
Prethinking
What can weaken the argument? Maybe they werent actually removed? Or maybe they are done with the work? We need to attack that policy
Answers:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. (This strenghthens the arguement by saying mal apps actually increased due to policy change, so no)
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. (Okay, but this doesnt weaken, it just says independent market place cant detect malicious apps similar to major market places)
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. (But this would increase malicious apps due to policy change so this strengthen not weaken the assumption)
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. (This seems about okay, since they didnt coordinate so they are still selling over major platforms and increse in malicious apps are not the reason for increase)
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. (Not cocerned with users)
Answer D
Bunuel
09 Jul 2025, 07:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
Even if the original developers didn't move over, the policy changes may have created an opportunity that other malicious developers exploited by copying removed apps. CORRECT
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
It might explain why malicious apps can survive on independent stores, but not why there is a surge now.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
That means the policy change could still be the cause of the surge, even if it wasn't the same removed developers. But A is better because in C we don't know if these new developer groups create apps related to the removed ones in the major marketplaces.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
Whether the platforms coordinated has nothing to do with why malicious apps surged elsewhere.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This is about user behavior, not the source of malicious apps.
IMO A
Even if the original developers didn't move over, the policy changes may have created an opportunity that other malicious developers exploited by copying removed apps. CORRECT
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
It might explain why malicious apps can survive on independent stores, but not why there is a surge now.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
That means the policy change could still be the cause of the surge, even if it wasn't the same removed developers. But A is better because in C we don't know if these new developer groups create apps related to the removed ones in the major marketplaces.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
Whether the platforms coordinated has nothing to do with why malicious apps surged elsewhere.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This is about user behavior, not the source of malicious apps.
IMO A
