Net Neutrality stipulates that Internet service providers (ISP) cannot

Conclusion to Weaken - Net neutrality(NN) => ISP cannot partition their bandwidth such that diff communication are allotted different bandwidth.
Counter premise - One group should not be penalized for the actions of other group.

Gap - however implementing NN will not allow a bandwidth separation between high end users and low end users, therefore this will adversely affect the users of low bandwidth users. It is like a paradox, if we allow separate tunnel for high end users avoiding NN this will ensure equal non-disrupted usage to all, however this is a kind of discrimination which is necessary to prevent low bandwidth users from the effect of users of high bandwidth

A) - It says MANY low end users also sometimes become high end users. Since, its return Many and not all so there must be some users left who will be affected.

B) - This clearly shows a discrimination towards low end users thus weakening the supporters and suggesting NN shouldn't be implemented.

C) - Out of scope

D) - We are not considered with the total number of users , again Out of Scope

E) - We are not discriminating against any user. This is will actually strengthen NN, hence opposite.

Clearly the answer is (B)

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The Argument of Net Neutrality Supporters: No Net Neutrality means one group gets penalized for another group's choice (i.e., high-bandwidth users get relegated to another lane that becomes slower due to congestion).

Supporters of Net Neutrality referenced in the original argument base their position on the principle that one group should not be penalized by the actions of another group. If this principle can be shown to give reason to oppose Net Neutrality, the argument in support of Net Neutrality mentioned above will be weakened. Note that it is not enough to weaken the overall argument in support of Net Neutrality—we must weaken "the argument of the supporters of Net Neutrality mentioned above."

A. This answer does not undermine the fact that one group is being penalized for the actions of another group nor does it show how the argument is flawed. Simply because one group is required to use high-bandwidth services does not mean they (or another group) are being penalized for this requirement.

B. This answer uses the principle that supporters of Net Neutrality used and shows how the principle can also be used to argue against Net Neutrality, thereby seriously weakening the supporters' argument. The cost of purchasing additional and expensive bandwidth will be passed on to low-bandwidth customers, "disproportionately increasing the price of access for low-bandwidth users." In other words, the actions of one group (high bandwidth users benefiting from Net Neutrality) will harm another group (low bandwidth users who carry a disproportionate burden of the cost of Net Neutrality).

C. This answer may strengthen the overall public support for Net Neutrality (i.e., it is opposed by lobbyists paid for by big telecommunications firms). This answer does not weaken the argument mentioned above since that argument is based upon one group suffering for the actions of another.

D. Although this answer weakens the overall argument in support of Net Neutrality, it does not weaken the argument mentioned above since that argument is based upon one group suffering for the actions of another while the argument in this answer choice is based upon satisfaction among Internet users.

E. This answer actually strengthens not weakens the argument in favor of implementing Net Neutrality.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.