GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Internet search engines record the search history

Question

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

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

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

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.

V33-17

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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.

chrisjonatan · Answer

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

zhanbo · Answer

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.

gmatlover1010 · Answer

A - This is not must. Users could have a problem with even a minor amount of data being collected. OUT
B - This is a trap. If not inconvenient then there is no benefit in avoiding tracking. OUT
C - Changes to regular advertising.. OUT
D - This could be a valid assumption. If ignoring is less time consuming then why bother taking time out to learn to opt out? -  Our Answer  
E - Irrelevant information.

Archit3110 · Answer

Premise : nternet 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

Conclusion : Therefore, internet search users would benefit from  taking the time  to learn how to opt out of search history tracking
need to weaken the conclusion based on fact of taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking

we need to find assumption of the argument use negation test to weaken the conclusion

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

Search engines are  not  capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history ; does not weaken the conclusion

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
Internet users find it inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results. does not weaken the conclusion

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.
Regular advertising in search results is  not  a frequent complaint of many internet users. does not weaken the conclusion

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

Ignoring targeted advertising is significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.  
  weakens the conclusion correct option

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.
argument does not discuss about revenues ; not correct

OPTION D is correct

sumitkrocks · Answer

(D) is the answer IMO

Conclusion : 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 .

Let us take a case when search engines are capable of recording a one day's search history data of users. so, after day 1 user might not be tracked but we can't say with surety that they would not be targeted. They may be targeted with the older data history and that is even worst and individual would not get benefitted in that case .

Argument says : Users who do not successfully complete these steps can find themselves subjected to regular, targeted advertising in search results based on their search histories.

Argument says only about users who do not do some setting changes in their system but does not mention about those who do: we can not infer that users who complete these steps would not be targeted frequently.

Very tempting option but not correct unfortunately. 
Eliminate 
 
B.  Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.

If users do not mind receiving advertisement so there could not be much benefit by avoiding such advertisements - Eliminate

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

what if regular advertising is not a frequent complain, Still internet users can be benefitted from opting out of search history tracking.- Eliminate

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

Conclusion mentions taking time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking would benefit users

Say learning how to opt out of search history tracking would take 100 hrs; however, overall users get disturbed by such advertisment costing them only 2 hrs in the entire lifecycle.

So the huge investment that users are required to do is not advisable and certainly would not guarantee any benefits unless we are sure of other aspects such as impact on the equality of work they do while such advertisements pop up.

We can safely say, ignoring other parameters, the learning to stop being tracked would help only if investment of time in such learnings is less than the overall time one saves by implementing such learnings. 
 
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.

Complexity is out of context- Eliminate

cs15811581 · Answer

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?

The answer should be some relation between opting out and targeted advertisements.

A. Search engines are capable of recording an unlimited amount of any individual’s search history.
 Does not effect the argument.

B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.
 Then, there is no requirement of learning how to opt out.

C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.
 Does not help in understanding the benefits of learning to opt out.

D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising. 
 Correct. It talks of benefit in terms of time spent on these advertisements.

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.
 Does not affect. May be a weakener if at all there is something to the option.

D

JonShukhrat · Answer

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

Let’s negate this one: even if limited amount of search history is recorded, that can be enough reason to get rid of the targeted advertisement they lead. So, incorrect.

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

Let’s negate: user find it inconvenient to receive ad. Will this invalidate the conclusion above? Nope. So, incorrect.

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

Let’s negate: regular ad is NOT a frequent complaint of many users. Even if it’s not a frequent complaint, users still may benefit from learning how to do those steps. So, incorrect.

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

Let’s negate: ignoring is significantly less time consuming than learning those steps. This means that we are losing more than we are gaining. 
If we believe the conclusion then we must benefit from learning those intricate steps. 
After opting out of such recording, we probably must gain more than we lose. Opportunity cost as we say.
But what if we lose more than we gain? 
What if simply not paying attention to the ad is much less time-consuming than learning those steps?
In this case we won’t end up with net benefit.
The choice that tackles this gap is D.

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.

Let’s negate: the complexity is not intentionally high. This has nothing to with the conclusion, hence out.

So D

Pif96 · Answer

Very  poor quality  question. Nowhere the text suggests you that the benefit would be related to time consuming. So as many writes here that C is irrilevant, for the same reason, D can be irrilevant

gullyboy09 · Answer

MartyMurray  is this a legit question? Especially if we talk about necessary assumption.

MartyMurray · Answer

The question doesn't quite work as written because the argument doesn't require that assumption about how time consuming the two options are. After all, even if it's more time consuming to learn to opt out than to ignore advertising, there could still be reasons why internet searcher users would benefit from taking the time to learn how to opt out of search history tracking.

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Internet search engines record the search history

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Internet search engines record the search history

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards