Explanation

Choice A: No. That search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history is not a necessary assumption to believe the conclusion.

Choice B: No. This is a reversal, because if internet users find it not inconvenient, or convenient, to receive advertising in their search results, then the conclusion would be less valid.

Choice C: No. That regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users is not a necessary assumption to believe the conclusion.

Choice D: Yes. That ignoring targeted advertising is not infinitely less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising is a necessary assumption to believe the conclusion, because if the opposite were true, then the argument would no longer be valid, since it would take less time to ignore the ads than to opt out in the first place.

Choice E: No. That the complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers is not a necessary assumption to believe the conclusion.

The correct answer is choice D.
_________________

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.1
Irrelevant with the conclusion. Incorrect

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
It is the opposite. Incorrect

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.
Correct, because the advertising is disturbing, internet users will benefit from taking those steps

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. I
Incorrect, opposite of conclusion

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers.
Irrelevant

IMO, C

Conclusion : Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history -Incorrect, May be true but not a req assumption

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.-Incorrect, Negating this option doesnt invalidate the conclusion.

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. ---Incorrect, dont see any impact to the conclusion

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. -- COrrect, the negation will show us user will benefit time if they ignore

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers.- -Incorrect, Not relevant

IMO : D

Premise 1 : Internet companies track search data, unless user follows some complex steps to opt out
Premise 2: The customers are subjected to unfavorable advertising by the companies
Conclusion: taking the time out to do this is beneficial to the customer
Underlying assumption --->?
A. It has no bearing on the argument.
B. Trap choice. Premise 2 already gives the same information. It is a rephrasing of an existing statement in the passage
C. Need not be assumed and the conclusion is still valid. Similar to the trap of B.
D. Correct choice- points out the time taken will be worth it, as the users can simply not ignore the ads.
E. It has no bearing on the argument

Need to find assumption to support the conclusion that users should learn to opt out of search tracking

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. -> so what - doesn't impact the conclusion of opting out of tracking. Incorrect.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. -> if they don't find it inconvenient -> then why opt out. not the assumption. Incorrect.

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. -> so, users are complaining -> so the author provides s solution, conclusion holds - > assumption is correct. Keep.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. ->learning to opt out and ignoring ads can be - of similar time consumption - so similar effort -> again then why opt out. not an assumption. Incorrect.

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. -> talk from customers perspective. does nothing for the conclusion. Incorrect.

Ans. C.
_________________

A - wrong - does not matter as it does not affect how it benefits
B, C - wrong - same as A as it does not affect how it benefits.
E - wrong - irrelevant

D - right - Negating - "Ignoring targeted advertising is significantly less time" then, there is no point to take the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking. It would not be beneficial. Hence Weakens the claimt

D-Ans

Logical map:
Search engine -> record history unless opt out by user -> if user doesn't opt out -> targeted by ads based on search history
Therefore users benefit from learning how to opt out

What is our assumption?

Pre-thinking: hot topic here, but my guess is the assumption has to do with whether targeted ads are actually bad, or privacy being more important than opportunity cost of time spent learning.

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. - seems out of scope. Eliminate.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. - seems to weaken conclusion. Eliminate.

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. - this is a good one. However, IMO this is more related to the premise than related to bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion, as an assumption should. Eliminate.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. - this is a good one. Aligns perfectly with pre-thinking. If it is no trouble to ignore the targeted ads, why bother spending the time to learn how to opt out. IMO edges out C as the best answer.

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. - interesting, but unrelated to the conclusion. Eliminate.

Conclusion: “internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.”
Why would users benefit from taking time out? Because “Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories.”
Now what if, time required, or efforts required to opt out are much greater than watching adds?
Then in that case, users won’t opt out. But since conclusion is stating that it will be beneficial for users, the author is assuming that there is not much difference in time or efforts between the two options.
A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. (Incorrect : So what? This option has no impact on the conclusion. It does not matter how much history is stored. End result is adds will be displayed)
B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
(Incorrect : “not inconvenient” means convenient. This destroys the conclusion completely)
C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. (Incorrect : Just because complaints are made, we cannot reach to the conclusion that its Benefial for users to opt out.)
D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. ( Correct : The time required to ignore the ads is not less significantly less than following steps to opt out. This is the assumption which we discussed in paraphrase step)
E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. (Incorrect : This might be a fact which is true but it has no impact on the conclusion author seeks)
_________________

Internet search engines record the search history of users, unless a user follows a specific set of frequently complex steps to opt out of such tracking. Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories. Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

Which of the following must be assumed to believe the conclusion about opting out of search history tracking?

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.1
Irrelevant.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
No, this is not the necessary assumption

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.
No.
Negation: Regular advertising in search results is not a frequent complaint of many internet users.
The argument can still stand - internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. I
This is necessary for the argument.
Negation: Ignoring targeted advertising is significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.
The argument breaks down - why should I learn to opt out if I can just ignore targeted advertising?

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers.
Out of scope

Option C.

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.1 = That is not the main crux of the passage. While this may be true this is not the correct assumption. Incorrect usage.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. = By this statement theymean that users find it convenient to receive advertising. incorrect usage.

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. = Since there is a regular complaint of many internet users, this issue needs to be addressed. Correct usage.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. I = This may be less time consuming but this does not provide the right assumption to ignore. Incorrect usage.

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. = Too extreme a scenario to be considered. Incorrect usage.

Internet search engines record the search history of users, unless a user follows a specific set of frequently complex steps to opt out of such tracking. Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories. Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

Which of the following must be assumed to believe the conclusion about opting out of search history tracking?


A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. not an assumption

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. not an assumption

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. not an assumption

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. I

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. not an assumption

Ans: D

IMO C


A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.

Doesnt matter. Even if the data is stored for limited time, it can still be bothersome to people who have to view the ads.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.

If these user find it convenient to receive ads, then why would they learn to opt out ? Weakens the argument instead.

C. Regular advertising in search is a frequent complaint of many internet users.

If the users are not FREQUENTLY COMPLAINING, means they have no motive to go out of their way to learn to opt out of these ads, then the conclusion falls apart.
It is necessary to assume that the user must be fed up of these ads. Only then it makes sense for the user to go out of his way to learn to opt out.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.

Even if ignoring ads is less time consuming, it may still be irritating for the user. Also, it might still be worth the investment to get rid of these ads once and for all. This one is not MUST BE TRUE case.

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers

Reasons why opting out is tougg is Out of scope.

Posted from my mobile device

My answer is D).

The gap from premise to conclusion is targeted ads if not opt out -> users will benefit if opt out. But why is that the case?

A) - whether search engines can record a finite or infinite # of search results, it does not really address how opting out would benefit the users. A) is out.

B) - double negative: internet users find it convenient to receive ads. If that's the case, this option weakens the conclusion, so B) is out.

C) - notice the qualifier of "many internet users" vs. the conclusion of (implicit) all internet users. If we accept C), which does seem to address the gap, what about the people who do not find targeted ads annoying? Seems like a strengthener but not an assumption. So C) is out.

D) - yes this works. What if people can just simply ignore the targeted ads instead of investing in the time to figure out how to opt out? Negating D) would turn this into a weakener, so hold on to D).

E) - we don't care why search engines make it complex to opt out, but why users will benefit from such opt outs. So E) is out.

D).

Internet search engines record the search history of users, unless a user follows a specific set of frequently complex steps to opt out of such tracking. Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories. Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

Which of the following must be assumed to believe the conclusion about opting out of search history tracking?


A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. Wrong

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. Wrong

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. Wrong

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. Correct

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. Wrong

A: The amount of history a search engine can record is irrelevant here
B: If anything, this would weaken the argument
C: If users find ads annoying, they would certainly benefit from receiving fewer ads
D: "not significant less" is still less => if anything, this would weaken the argument
E: We already know that the opt out steps are complex, extra information on how complex they are would be irrelevant

IMO C

Internet search engines record the search history of users, unless a user follows a specific set of frequently complex steps to opt out of such tracking. Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories. Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

Which of the following must be assumed to believe the conclusion about opting out of search history tracking?

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.1
No where mentioned or suggestive of whether one gets unlimited amount of individual’s search history. Hence incorrect

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
It is opposite of the fact. Internet users find it inconvenient to receive advertising in their results. Hence incorrect

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.
Advertising is a complaint which users want to overcome by learning complex steps to out of it. Hence correct

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.
No where suggestive of the time consumption. Hence incorrect

E. The complexity of search engine opt-out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers.
No where mentioned or suggestive of revenues. Hence incorrect

IMO D

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. --Irrelevant, is not an assumption

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. --Weakens the argument, not an assumption

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. -- Although this may be correct, this is not an assumption, also search users may not complain about targeted ads

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. -- Correct

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers. --Irrelevant

Internet search engines record the search history of users, unless a user follows a specific set of frequently complex steps to opt out of such tracking. Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories. Therefore, internet search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

Which of the following must be assumed to believe the conclusion about opting out of search history tracking?


A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history. - the fact isn't given and is not important to the passage.


B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.-the not inconvenient is the opposite of what we want

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users. -could possibly be true but not what the author assume

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. -correct, the author must believe that people want to get rid of targeted advertising and don't like it and can't ignoreit until they want to learn to opt the out

E. The complexity of search engine opt out steps is intentionally high, since search engines derive revenues from the number of viewers they deliver to advertisers.-out of scope

D

My answer is (D) even though it is actually not needed to believe the conclusion.

Pre-thinking: search users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking. Why? Possible answers:
1. They value their privacy and won't want to get tracked.
2. They have the tendency to buy relevant products. Not seeing those ads helps them not to squander they hard earned money to enrich the wallets of both manufactures and search engines.
3. With enough people opting out, consumers might eventually be paid to agree to be tracked.

Now check answer choices.
(A) Does not need to be assumed. Search engine can do pretty well with just a month's data.

(B) "not inconvenient" = "acceptable". Whether users find it acceptable about receiving ads is not relevant here. After opting-out, they will still be bombarded with non-targeted ads.

(C) Not relevant here. Non-targeted ads are still ads.

(D) Not a strong answer. The motivation to opt out may have nothing to do with the time saved. Still, keep for now.

(E) It attacks the greedy motives of search engine companies, but its relationship with user's benefit is tenuous at best.

Finally, (D) is deemed to be relevant even though many users may still benefit from opt-out even though they spend more time learning how to opt out.