V33-17

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.
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.
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.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

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.
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.
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.

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.

Answer: D

SRIVISHUDDHA22 · Answer

I did not quite understand the solution. why is A not the answer

hr1212 · Answer

My approach -

Premise - 
1. 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. 
2. 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.

Prethinking -
Why is author assuming that users do not like targeted advertising? Is he sure that once you opt out of search history tracking either users would not receive ads or the untargeted ads would be useful to users? What does benefit in the conclusion actually mean - saving time or maintaining privacy?

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

This is totally irrelevant as it doesn't fit any of the gaps we are trying to address. Like the recording strength of search engine would not contribute in any ways to the conclusion, where there's some kind of benefit being discussed for the users.
 
 B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.

Maybe true, but it might happen even if users opt out or not, so this is just an extra piece of information and it does not help in paying way forward for the conclusion. 
 
 C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.

Good to know but totally irrelevant. Like the benefit factor for the users is again too murky based on this piece of information.
 
 D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.

Ok so this emphasizes on the time saved as a major benefit for the users. If ignoring targeted advertising is easier why would anyone want to follow the complex steps of opting out - negation breaks the conclusion. So let's hold on to this, as most probably this would be the right 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.

Out of scope information, as we care about why users would benefit from opting out rather than how it benefits the search engines.

g4902384 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful. Only thing I would say on choice C this doesn't affect the exact conclusion of the argument which is about the time benefit of learning about search history tracking. It supports the conclusion but not an assumption integral to the argument.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

The correct answer is  D .
Here's a breakdown of the argument and why D is the necessary assumption:

Premise:  Unless users take complex steps to opt out, search engines track their history and show them targeted ads.  
   Conclusion:  Users would  benefit  from  taking the time  to learn how to opt out.   
 The argument sets up a cost-benefit analysis. The "cost" is the time and effort it takes to learn the opt-out process. The "benefit" is avoiding targeted advertising. The conclusion only holds if the benefit is worth the cost.

Analysis of the Options

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

This is not necessary. The argument works even if the recorded history is limited. The core issue is that  some  tracking occurs, leading to ads, not the total amount of data stored.   
 
   B. Internet users find it not inconvenient to receive advertising in their search results.

This weakens the argument. If the ads aren't a problem, there's no benefit in learning how to stop them. The argument must assume the opposite.   
 
   C. Regular advertising in search results is a frequent complaint of many internet users.

This strengthens the argument by suggesting the ads are a significant annoyance, but it's not a  must-be-true  assumption. The benefit could exist for users even if they don't actively or frequently complain.   
 
   D. Ignoring targeted advertising is not significantly less time consuming than learning how to opt out of such advertising.

This is the correct assumption.  The conclusion recommends investing time to learn the opt-out process. This recommendation only makes sense if the alternative—continuously ignoring the ads over time—is comparably costly in terms of time and mental energy. If ignoring the ads was nearly effortless and took almost no time, while learning to opt-out took hours, it would be hard to argue that users "benefit" from the time investment. This option bridges the gap between the problem (targeted ads) and the proposed solution (spending time to opt 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.

This explains  why  the steps might be complex, but it's irrelevant to the user's cost-benefit analysis. The reason for the complexity doesn't change whether it's beneficial for a user to overcome it. 
Hope it helps

V33-17

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