A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only

Question

A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only open-source software, i.e., software that is non proprietary, based on code the user is allowed to redistribute and alter in any way. The bill appears to assume that open-source software is free. However, research has shown that the purchase cost of open source software is about 8% of the total cost associated with the use of the software, and that the cost of utilization—the sum of all non-purchase costs including installation, maintenance, administration, and downtime—is much higher than it is in the case of proprietary software.

The bill would require government to undergo an intensive program of software migration, at considerable immediate cost and risk. And because multiple versions of open-source software exist, the bill’s measures are likely to increase compatibility problems between the information-technology systems of government agencies, as well as between government systems and private-sector systems.We are aware that open-source software is not always offered free of charge. And although savings are indeed mentioned in the bill, its primary aim is to protect citizens’ free access to information. Because the bill requires that encoding of data not be tied to a single software provider, it is able to guarantee this free access.

The bill would indeed require government to begin an intensive process of software migration that would not otherwise be undertaken. However, the high cost of software migration in general is an argument in favor of the bill. The longer a particular information technology system is used, the more expensive migration to a different system becomes. Because open-source software allows the encoding of data in standard and adaptable formats, software migration becomes much easier and less expensive once open-source software is installed. And of course, migration from proprietary to open- source software would entail no greater cost than would migration between two different proprietary software systems.

wadbarzain · Accepted Answer

1. Open-source software is not always free is mentioned by the software company, and the government doesn't dispute but rather reinforces that the initial cost is worth making.  NO

2. Not mentioned explicitly  NO

3. Quite the opposite, its the primary aim of the bill to protect citizens' free access to information.  NO

daviddaviddavid · Answer

they all undermine

since you have to take into accounts both sides of the argument

KarishmaB · Answer

Question 1.

ID: 100435 
 For each of the following statements, select Undermines if it would, if true, undermine the arguments made in one or the other of the two passages. Otherwise, select Does not undermine.

I. Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive for the government than would migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software.

TAB 2, last line: migration from proprietary to open- source software would entail no greater cost than would migration between two different proprietary software systems.

Select  Undermines

II. The measures included in the bill will, if complied with, ensure compatibility among software systems used by all the various relevant stakeholders.

TAB 1, last line: the bill’s measures are likely to increase compatibility problems between the information-technology systems of government agencies, as well as between government systems and private-sector systems.

Select  Undermines

III. As a software package is used for a longer period of time, it becomes less expensive to migrate from that package to another.

TAB 2, second para, 4th line: The longer a particular information technology system is used, the more expensive migration to a different system becomes.

Select  Undermines

Question 2.

In view of the motivation for the bill as presented in the government response, which one of the following would, if true, most strongly support a case against the need for the law proposed in the bill?

Law proposed in the bill:     A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only open-source software, i.e., software that is non proprietary

Motivation for the bill     as presented in the government response is given here:

TAB 2, first para: And although savings are indeed mentioned in the bill, its primary aim is to protect citizens’ free access to information. Because the bill requires that encoding of data not be tied to a single software provider, it is able to guarantee this free access.

We are   looking   for something which says that we don't need the law proposed (use only open source software) if what you want is free access.

I. Various stakeholders, including members of the public, have objected to having to learn new systems for accessing information from the government, as they will need to do if the bill is enacted

Irrelevant.

II. There is proprietary software that can perform essential government tasks and that has lower total costs (purchase costs plus utilization costs) than open-source software.

The motivation is   free   access,  not cost anyway even though it has been mentioned. Ignore.

III. There are proprietary software packages that, if implemented across all of government, would ensure compatibility between government information technology systems.

The motivation is free access, not compatibility.

IV. Many businesses would have to conduct their own software migrations if the bill is enacted, and have objected to the costs this will involve.

Irrelevant.

V. There is proprietary software that can be affordably implemented by the government and that would fully guarantee free access to information by citizens.

Correct.  It says   that   open    source is not  necessary  for free access. That even proprietary software can give you.

Question 3.

For each of the following statements, select    Yes    if the statement is made by the software company and disputed by the government in its response. Otherwise, select    No   .

Open-source software is not always free from purchase costs.

Statement is made by the software company BUT NOT disputed by the government.

Select  No

Government decisions concerning choice of a software system should be based primarily on economizing and cost.

Statement is NOT made by the software company.

Select  No

It is not the primary aim of the bill to protect citizens’ free access to information.

Statement is NOT made by the software company.

Select  No

dejanajeremic · Answer

Chin926926 · Answer

--
This is the correct answer. They all undermine. The first one undermines the software company (paragraph 1). The second one undermines the software company (paragraph 2). The third one undermines the government (paragraph 2).

SN: I'm annoyed that I just bought these practice exams, they include questions from years ago (as per this thread), and they don't provide explanations for the correct answers.

Jarvis07 · Answer

Statement 1: Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive for the government than would migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software.

Undermines the government's argument. The government argues that the bill would make software migration easier and less expensive in the long run. However, if statement 1 is true, then the opposite would be the case. Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive than migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software, which would make the bill more expensive in the long run.

Statement 2: The measures included in the bill will, if complied with, ensure compatibility among software systems used by all the various relevant stakeholders.

Does not undermine either argument. The company's argument is that the bill would increase compatibility problems, while the government's argument is that the bill would decrease compatibility problems. Statement 2 does not address either of these arguments directly, so it does not undermine either one.

Statement 3: As a software package is used for a longer period of time, it becomes less expensive to migrate from that package to another.

Undermines the company's argument. The company argues that the cost of open-source software is much higher than the cost of proprietary software, and that this would make migration to open-source software more expensive. However, if statement 3 is true, then the opposite would be the case. As software packages are used for longer periods of time, they become more complex and interconnected, which would make migration from them more difficult and expensive.

vnavaes · Answer

Question 2 is wrong, correct answer is: There is proprietary software that can be affordably implemented by the government and that would fully guarantee free access to information by citizens.

"And although savings are indeed mentioned in the bill, its  primary aim is to protect citizens’ free access to informatio n"

chetan2u · Answer

In view of the motivation for the bill as presented in the government response, which one of the following would, if true, most strongly support a case against the need for the law proposed in the bill?
 The question statement tells us that we have to stick to the reasoning given by the government in favour of the bill. There are two cases made for the enactment of the bill, and both have been touched by two options given.  
Thus, let us discard all other and look at these two options.

1. 
The government response 
“ The bill would indeed require government to begin an intensive process of software migration that would not otherwise be undertaken. However, the high cost of software migration in general is an argument in favor of the bill. “
 Now, if there is a software available that could do the same work at lower cost, the migration is not required.  
However, the last statement in the governments response undermines this option as the cost of shifting to this propriety software would also involve similar expenditure. 
 And of course, migration from proprietary to open- source software would entail no greater cost than would migration between two different proprietary software systems.

2. 
The government response:
“Because the bill requires that encoding of data not be tied to a single software provider, it is able to guarantee this free access.”
The law basically is against single provider, that is proprietary software, because it does not allow free flow of information to users. 
 But this proprietary software is affordable (that is cost involved is affordable) and the word ‘implemented’ should mean it meets the requirements of government. Finally, it allows free flow of information. 
So, should be the answer.

jaykayes · Answer

chetan2u ,
I have the following two doubts that still make me think that the first of the above two options is the right answer:

(1) Your explanation for rejecting option 1:
The question stem has the crucial words "if true". Doesn't that mean we should take whatever is stated in the answer as true,   even if it opposes something in the passage  ? In that case, proprietary software DOES have a lower total cost.

(2) Answer option 2 has the words "can be affordably implemented". But the criterion for selection is   NOT   about affordability - it's about   higher vs. lower total cost   (even though both are affordabe).

Please help me understand what I'm missing.

chetan2u · Answer

The above clearly states that the primary aim is to give free access to the citizens. The option 2 which we discussed above is the one talking of free access. So, if there is a proprietary software doing the same task within affordable rates, then why move to open-source, that why is there a need for the law.

However, the option one talks of affordability but not free access, which is the primary aim.

jaykayes · Answer

OK thanks  chetan2u  , now I'm convinced!
I'm paraphrasing what you said here (for my own clarity):
1. According to the government response, the motivation for the bill is its primary aim, which is free access to citizens.
2. The need for the bill would go away if the primary aim could be met   without   the use of open-source software, i.e., with proprietary software.
    (because the the bill requires the government to "use   ONLY   open-source software").
3. The correct answer tells us that there   IS   some proprietary software available that meets the primary aim. So the need for the bill goes away.

Eagle1 · Answer

In question 3 part 2, how is the answer 'no' when the company has only talked about costs in the whole argument. Inference drawn is that company thinks government will not switch if its too costly or not compatible but majorly if too costly.

GMATQuizMaster · Answer

Hi  MM2 !,

Let me try to help.

The software company says -  The bill appears to assume that open-source software is free.   It does not mention what "should be" the basis for the government's decision.

Q3, S2 asks you - Does the software company say that " Government decisions concerning choice of a software system should be based primarily on economizing and cost?" The answer is No.

IMO, you either mis-read Q3, S2 or did not understand what the passage says (Yes, the software company talks about cost, but does not suggest that it should be the basis for any decision!). Do let me know where you faltered and I can suggest corrective actions.

Hope it helps!
Good luck.

Hope it helps!
Good luck.

A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only

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

Undermines	Does not undermine
		Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive for the government than would migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software.
		The measures included in the bill will, if complied with, ensure compatibility among software systems used by all the various relevant stakeholders.
		As a software package is used for a longer period of time, it becomes less expensive to migrate from that package to another.

	Various stakeholders, including members of the public, have objected to having to learn new systems for accessing information from the government, as they will need to do if the bill is enacted.
	There is proprietary software that can perform essential government tasks and that has lower total costs (purchase costs plus utilization costs) than open-source software.
	There are proprietary software packages that, if implemented across all of government, would ensure compatibility between government information technology systems.
	Many businesses would have to conduct their own software migrations if the bill is enacted, and have objected to the costs this will involve.
	There is proprietary software that can be affordably implemented by the government and that would fully guarantee free access to information by citizens.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only

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