Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 14:06 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 14:06
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
705-805 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,062
 [13]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
778,062
 [2]
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,062
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Cana1766
Joined: 26 May 2024
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
79
 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 85
Kudos: 79
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Heix
Joined: 21 Feb 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 63
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77
GPA: 3.4
WE:Accounting (Finance)
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77
Posts: 361
Kudos: 153
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The commentators claim that the surge in malicious apps on independent marketplaces is caused by developers who were removed from major platforms. However, the editorial counters this by stating that none of those removed developers has released new apps on alternative marketplaces.
To weaken this argument, we need to find something that undermines the editorial's reasoning or shows how the commentators could still be correct despite the evidence presented.
Let's evaluate each option:
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
This weakens the editorial's argument by suggesting that while the exact same developers may not have moved to independent marketplaces, the restrictions have still led to a surge in malicious apps - just through different developers who are copying the removed apps. This shows how the platform restrictions could still be causing the surge, even if not through the exact same developers.
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
This doesn't weaken the editorial's argument. It just explains why independent marketplaces might have more malicious apps in general, not why there was a recent surge.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
This actually strengthens the editorial's argument by providing an alternative explanation for the surge that has nothing to do with developers removed from major platforms.
D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
This doesn't impact the editorial's argument about whether removed developers are creating the surge on independent marketplaces.
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This is irrelevant to the cause of the surge in malicious apps on independent marketplaces.
The correct answer is (A). It shows how the restrictions could still be causing the surge in malicious apps on independent marketplaces, even though the exact same developers aren't involved - undermining the editorial's counterargument.
User avatar
Ryga
Joined: 12 Aug 2023
Last visit: 19 Aug 2025
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
51
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q90 V80 DI83
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q90 V80 DI83
Posts: 68
Kudos: 51
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument claims surge in malicious apps is due to developers removed from major platforms.
(A) says many malicious apps on independent marketplaces resemble apps removed from majors but are made by different developers.
This means the surge isn’t caused by the removed developers releasing new apps, weakening the argument.

Hence, Answer A
User avatar
MaxFabianKirchner
Joined: 02 Jun 2025
Last visit: 12 Jul 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 122
Status:26' Applicant
Location: Denmark
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GPA: 4.0
WE:Other (Student)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question asks to weaken the argument made in the editorial. The editorial's argument is that since the developers removed from major app stores did not release new apps on alternative marketplaces, the commentators' claim that new restrictions caused a surge in malicious apps is wrong.

The editorial's reasoning rests on the flawed assumption that the only possible way the new restrictions could have caused the surge is if the very same developers who were removed were the ones responsible for the new malicious apps. The argument ignores other potential causal mechanisms. To weaken the argument, one must show how the new restrictions could have caused the surge even if the original developers were not involved.

Answer choice (C) provides this alternative causal link. It states that "Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks." This establishes a direct connection between the policy changes and the surge, but attributes the surge to a different set of actors—new developer groups. These new groups perceived the policy changes as a signal that major platforms were becoming more difficult targets, making the less-secure independent marketplaces more attractive. This explanation allows for the commentators' conclusion (that the restrictions caused the surge) to be correct, while also allowing the editorial's premise (that the original culprits did not release new apps) to be true, thus breaking the logical link in the editorial's argument.

This information provides an alternative explanation that is consistent with the commentators' view and undermines the editorial's conclusion. The correct answer is (C).
User avatar
Emkicheru
Joined: 12 Sep 2023
Last visit: 12 Sep 2025
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Location: Kenya
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48
GRE 1: Q167 V164
GPA: 3.7
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48
GRE 1: Q167 V164
Posts: 119
Kudos: 22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


Option A because of the release of malicious apps resembling the original apps
User avatar
k11work
Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
92
 [1]
Given Kudos: 84
Status:Complete
Affiliations: -
-: -
Products:
Posts: 119
Kudos: 92
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
CORRECT - The developers of these are unrelated , however, the commentators think that they are the same. If this is true, it weakens the argument.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
INCORRECT

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
INCORRECT

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
INCORRECT

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
INCORRECT

Answer is A.
User avatar
praneethkarempudi
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Last visit: 31 Oct 2025
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GPA: 85%
Products:
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 37
Kudos: 18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Options B,D,E are very specific in nature and should not play the deciding role and sometimes irrelavant
C introduces a new cause for raise in these apps which might call into questions the commentators point of view.
Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
Archit3110
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 8,423
Own Kudos:
4,979
 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
Posts: 8,423
Kudos: 4,979
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
argument

Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms.
IC
none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

weaken the conclusion

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. ; this provides alternate reasoning to conclusion of argument ; correct option as it weakens the conclusion

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
the reasoning is not valid to weaken the conclusion

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
the option is more of a strengthener than weakner


(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. not relevant to argument

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. does not weaken the argument

OPTION A is correct
Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
Dipan0506
Joined: 24 May 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3
Products:
Posts: 72
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument- There has been a surge in malicious mobile apps in independent app marketplaces inspite of new restrictions imposed by major app store platforms. None of the developers have been removed. A new app has been released on alternative market place.

a.) Strengthens the argument as malicious apps resemble those legitimate apps, hence creating a confusion.
b.) Strengthens the argument that independent market places has fewer restrictions and compliances than those of major app store paltforms giving more access to release malicious app.
c.) Strengthens the argument that after policy changes were announced, independent marketplaces were targeted for easy access and fewer compliance checks.
d.) Weakens the argument as major platforms are well aware of the policy changes.
e.) Strengthens nor weakens the argument as some users are aware of the malicious apps, hence prefer downloading from official app stores. The main purpose of the argument is that the users are aware to differentiate between official and independent.
Hence Point D is the answer.
User avatar
Missinga
Joined: 20 Jan 2025
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 393
Own Kudos:
261
 [1]
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 393
Kudos: 261
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers...... Explains an alternative way for conclusion. Even if different developers are releasing the malicious apps, they could be copying or imitating the removed developers’ apps.........Strong option

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do....... This explains why malicious apps flourish on independent store..........No

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks........ Does not weaken the editorial

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another........ Coordination doesn’t affect whether removed developers caused the surg..........Irrelevant

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes..........Irrelevant

A
User avatar
chasing725
Joined: 22 Jun 2025
Last visit: 17 Aug 2025
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
81
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States (OR)
Schools: Stanford
Schools: Stanford
Posts: 85
Kudos: 81
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


We have to weaken the argument

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

This information weakens the argument made. The unrelated developers could be adding the apps. We can keep A.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

This information is not relevant to the argument. We can eliminate B.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

While this tells us that independent groups might be responsible, we can't attribute the change. Hence, we can eliminate C.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

Out of scope and irrelevant information. We can eliminate D.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.

This information is not relevant and doesn't weaken the argument. Eliminate E.

Option A
User avatar
A_Nishith
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 455
Own Kudos:
199
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 455
Kudos: 199
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument in the editorial is:

Claim by Commentators: The surge in malicious mobile apps on independent marketplaces is due to new restrictions by major platforms, which led to developers being removed.

Editorial's Counter-Argument: This claim is weak because the developers removed from major platforms (the alleged culprits) haven't released new apps on the alternative marketplaces.

The editorial's counter-argument essentially says: "If the removed developers were the cause, we'd see their apps on independent marketplaces. We don't. Therefore, the commentators' claim is wrong."

We are looking for something that most seriously weakens the editorial's counter-argument. This means finding a reason why the surge could still be related to the new restrictions, even if the removed developers themselves aren't directly posting new malicious apps.

Let's analyze the options:

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

This is a strong weakener. The editorial's counter-argument relies on the idea that the "culprits" are the removed developers themselves. This option suggests that while the removed developers aren't directly releasing new apps, the apps they developed (or their ideas/types) might be re-released as malicious versions by unrelated developers. This keeps the link between the major platform restrictions (leading to app removal) and the surge in malicious apps, even if the original developers aren't directly involved in the new malicious activity. It shifts the blame from the specific removed developers to the removal event itself or the types of apps removed.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

This explains why there might be malicious apps on independent marketplaces, but it doesn't directly address the cause of the recent surge or weaken the editorial's specific counter-argument about the removed developers. It describes a pre-existing condition, not a direct link to the new restrictions.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

This is a very strong weaken, possibly stronger than (A). The editorial argues that the specific removed developers are not releasing new apps. However, this option provides an alternative mechanism: the policy changes themselves (which led to removals) might have created an environment or opportunity that other malicious developers exploited. These "new developer groups" might be creating new malicious apps (not necessarily re-releasing old ones) because the independent marketplaces are now seen as a less regulated haven after the major platforms tightened their policies. This directly links the policy changes to the surge in malicious apps, circumventing the editorial's narrow focus on the removed developers.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

This is largely irrelevant to the argument. Whether they coordinated or not, the effect of their individual restrictions on developers and the subsequent market dynamics would still be the same for the purpose of this argument.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.

This relates to user behavior but does not weaken the argument about the cause of the surge in malicious apps on independent marketplaces.

Comparing (A) and (C):

(A) suggests a direct re-packaging/re-release of removed app types by new actors. This directly connects the removed apps (due to restrictions) to the malicious surge.

(C) suggests that the policy changes themselves (not necessarily just the specific apps removed, but the overall tightening) created an incentive for new malicious development to flow to independent marketplaces. This is a broader and arguably more direct weakening of the editorial's point. The editorial tries to break the causal link between "new restrictions" and "surge" by looking at the specific "removed developers." (C) says "new developer groups" are now doing this, because of the "policy changes," thus re-establishing the causal link that the editorial tried to dismiss.

The editorial's logic is: "Commentators say X caused Y because Z happened. But Z didn't actually happen (i.e., removed developers didn't go to indy markets). Therefore X didn't cause Y."
(C) weakens this by saying: "Z didn't happen, but X still caused Y, just in a slightly different way (new malicious developers were attracted by the restrictions/lack of checks on indy markets)."

Therefore, (C) is the stronger weaken. It directly provides an alternative mechanism by which the policy changes could still be responsible for the surge, without relying on the exact mechanism the editorial disproved.

Answer: C
User avatar
Natansha
Joined: 13 Jun 2019
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
29
 [1]
Given Kudos: 84
Posts: 150
Kudos: 29
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion is Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces. We have to weaken this.

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. CORRECT. the conclusion said that the developers who are there on major app marketplaces released malicious apps on independent marketplaces. This option suggests that it was done by unrelated developers, hence it weakens the conclusion

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. Slightly Strengthens the conclusion by suggesting that apps released on independent marketplaces by the developers can be malicious,

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. Strengthens the conclusion by suggesting that even if these new developers can distribute apps on the official app stores, they distribute it through independent marketplace with fewer compliance checks

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. Irrelevant whether they coordinated the policy changes or not.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.: Users prefer which app store is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Ans A
User avatar
hakzarif
Joined: 31 May 2025
Last visit: 25 Oct 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 9
Products:
Posts: 65
Kudos: 29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The editorial argues that the surge in malicious apps on independent marketplaces is caused by new restrictions on major app stores, implying that developers removed from major platforms have moved to independent ones. However, none of those removed developers have released apps on alternative marketplaces, creating a gap in the argument. To weaken this argument, we need evidence that explains why malicious apps increased on independent marketplaces even without the removed developers switching over. Option (C) states that new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces right after policy changes, suggesting that the surge in malicious apps is due to entirely new players exploiting weaker compliance, not the displaced developers. This directly challenges the editorial’s assumption that the removed developers are responsible. Options (A), (B), (D), and (E) provide contextual or unrelated information but do not directly counter the argument as effectively as (C). Therefore, (C) most seriously weakens the editorial’s claim.
avatar
ManifestDreamMBA
Joined: 17 Sep 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,282
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 236
Products:
Posts: 1,282
Kudos: 784
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers. This looks like a trap. Unrelated developers to the legitimate apps or the developers removed from the major platforms? Out

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do. But we do not know if the trend has changed or it continues, i.e. is the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces due to better detection or there's something else at play? We don't know

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks. This makes sense. the culprits have formed new groups

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another. Irrelevant

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes. Irrelevant
Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
muuss
Joined: 10 Aug 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
83
 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q84 V81 DI76
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q84 V81 DI76
Posts: 108
Kudos: 83
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.- correct if the devs of major platform were causing the surge and were removed or banned due to this , but here it states that unrelated devs made the malicious apps found on the independent marketplace .Weakens
(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
-irrelevant as to how this could cause the devs of major platform to not create malicious apps in independent marketplace.
(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.-this says new devs formed groups and not the devs those were banned.
(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.- irrelevant
(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.- irrelevant the surge of malicious apps is linked to the policy changes.
User avatar
APram
Joined: 23 Jun 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 671
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 240
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q86 V78 DI76
GPA: 3.608
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q86 V78 DI76
Posts: 671
Kudos: 263
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion : Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms.
Evidence: Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

To weaken it we need to show that even if original developers were not involved but the new restriction can still be responsible for the malicious app surge.

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.
This does not show that even if original developers were not involved but the new restriction can still be responsible for the malicious app surge. Hence eliminate.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.
What happened in history is not related to what happens in present or future. This does not weaken

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.
yes this weakens. If new developers targeted independent marketplaces with fewer compliances then the malicious app must have surged without direct involvement

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.
This does not show if the malicious app surged due to this.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.
This contradicts the validity of new policy.

Hence C is correct

Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
Jarvis07
Joined: 06 Sep 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 295
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 160
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Posts: 295
Kudos: 236
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The best choice is (C). If, immediately after the major platforms tightened their policies, entirely new developer groups began exploiting independent marketplaces which have laxer compliance checks, that provides a direct alternative explanation for the surge in malicious apps. It shows the uptick isn’t driven by developers removed from the major stores, but by opportunistic newcomers, thereby undercutting the editorial’s core claim.

Bunuel
Some industry commentators argue that the recent surge in malicious mobile apps found on independent app marketplaces is the result of new restrictions imposed by the major app-store platforms. Yet none of the developers removed from the major platforms, the commentators’ alleged culprits, has released a new app on those alternative marketplaces.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?

(A) Many of the malicious apps found on independent marketplaces resemble legitimate apps removed from major platforms and are offered by unrelated developers.

(B) Historically, the independent marketplaces have had far fewer resources to detect and remove malicious apps than major app-store platforms do.

(C) Shortly after the policy changes were announced, several new developer groups began targeting independent marketplaces to distribute apps with fewer compliance checks.

(D) The major app-store platforms did not coordinate their policy changes with one another.

(E) Some users continue to prefer downloading apps through official app stores, even after the policy changes.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts