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, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
47% (02:16) correct
53%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 518
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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?
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
|
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
This is a challenging question to digest. You may have to read it a few times to get the relationship between who the commentator and where the voice of the editorial stands. Basically in this scenario, the commentators argue that the spike in Malicious mobile apps on independent app stores is the results of Major App stores imposing new restrictions. The editorial, in turn, argues that this is not the case (implied) because those delisted developers have not released any new apps on the alternative marketplaces.
The Second step is to figure out the problem and how to potentially weaken the argument of the editorial. This is a bit of a paradox question disguised as a Weaken one. What we need to do is argue (somehow) that even though delisted developers have not released any new apps, their absence from the app store is still somehow responsible for the surge in malicious apps on independent app stores. This seems like a pretty unique situation, so should not be hard to get to the answer choice that fits all of the requirements and explains this complex situation but this is because we have done the ground work.
(A) Correct. This is the best weakening option. This alternative explanation suggests that while the original developers didn’t move to alternative marketplaces, other malicious actors copied their apps and exploited the gap left behind by the removals. This supports the commentators’ view that the major platforms’ actions indirectly caused the surge by creating an opportunity for impersonators. It undermines the editorial’s assumption that only the removed developers could have been responsible. Basically it says that while there is no direct link, there is a pretty strong indirect (detour) that exists.
(B) Incorrect. This choice explains why malicious apps might thrive on independent marketplaces, but does not explain why the recent surge has happened or how it may be linked to the restrictions on the major app store platforms.
(C) Incorrect. This choice weakens the editorial mildly, as it introduces new culprits, but it does not link these developers to the restrictions imposed by major platforms. Without that link, it’s not strong enough to seriously weaken the editorial’s counterpoint and thus this is not the best weakener, though weakener it is.
(D) Incorrect. Irrelevant. Coordination between platforms has no bearing on the link between the policy changes and the surge in malicious apps. It neither weakens nor strengthens either argument.
(E) Incorrect. Out of scope. Our argument is about developers and apps, not about user preferences. This option does not weaken the editorial at all, and if anything strengthens it.
General Discussion
08 Jul 2025, 08:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument is that none of the developers removed from major marektplaces,release a new app on independent marketplaces.So we have to weaken this.
Option A weakens this by saying there might be developers(other than developers removed from the major platform) who copies legitimate apps and put in independent marketplaces. This means the surge in malicious apps could still be a consequence of the major platforms' restrictions — just indirectly.
Its crucial to identify the argument for this question.
Hence option A is the answer.
Option A weakens this by saying there might be developers(other than developers removed from the major platform) who copies legitimate apps and put in independent marketplaces. This means the surge in malicious apps could still be a consequence of the major platforms' restrictions — just indirectly.
Its crucial to identify the argument for this question.
Hence option A is the answer.
Bunuel
