Net Neutrality stipulates that Internet service providers (ISP) cannot partition their bandwidth such that different types of Internet communications have different maximum bandwidth capacities. For example, an ISP cannot relegate high bandwidth voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic to a separate tunnel in an attempt to ensure that users of low-bandwidth functions such as plain-text email are not slowed down by the high-bandwidth users. Some individuals support implementing Net Neutrality on the principle that one group (i.e., users of high-bandwidth services) should not be effectively penalized for the actions of another group (i.e., users of slow-bandwidth services, who have a special traffic lane carved out for them, thereby slowing high-bandwidth users).

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument of the supporters of Net Neutrality mentioned above?


A) The jobs of many high-bandwidth users require these individuals to use high-bandwidth services.

B) Placing no restrictions on the bandwidth of individuals who use high-bandwidth services would force ISPs to purchase massive amounts of expensive additional bandwidth, disproportionately increasing the price of access for low-bandwidth users.

C) A strong and well respected lobbying firm recently revealed it has been hired by large telecommunications firms to oppose Net Neutrality on the grounds that it infringes upon a private company's ability to do business.

D) One country that mandated Net Neutrality saw a decrease in satisfaction of Internet users.

E) A recent court ruling upheld the principle that technology companies cannot discriminate in whom they serve or how they serve users.

Net Neutrality stipulates that Internet service providers (ISP) cannot partition their bandwidth such that different types of Internet communications have different maximum bandwidth capacities. For example, an ISP cannot relegate high bandwidth voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic to a separate tunnel in an attempt to ensure that users of low-bandwidth functions such as plain-text email are not slowed down by the high-bandwidth users. Some individuals support implementing Net Neutrality on the principle that one group (i.e., users of high-bandwidth services) should not be effectively penalized for the actions of another group (i.e., users of slow-bandwidth services, who have a special traffic lane carved out for them, thereby slowing high-bandwidth users).

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument of the supporters of Net Neutrality mentioned above?
A) The jobs of many high-bandwidth users require these individuals to use high-bandwidth services
this is fine but this answer choice does not relate to the relation given in the passages

B) Placing no restrictions on the bandwidth of individuals who use high-bandwidth services would force ISPs to purchase massive amounts of expensive additional bandwidth, disproportionately increasing the price of access for low-bandwidth users.
This is correct. This logic says that not HIgh band users but the low band users are affetced....exactly opposite to the conclusion

C) A strong and well respected lobbying firm recently revealed it has been hired by large telecommunications firms to oppose Net Neutrality on the grounds that it infringes upon a private company's ability to do business.
Too specific....talks about "a private company's busines ability"

D) One country that mandated Net Neutrality saw a decrease in satisfaction of Internet users.
Satisfaction of internet usage can be attributed to other reasons...a lot of assumptions

E) A recent court ruling upheld the principle that technology companies cannot discriminate in whom they serve or how they serve users.
It is in line with the conclusion

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.
_________________