Bunuel wrote:
Two-dimensional bar codes are omni-directional; that is, unlike one-dimensional bar codes, they can be scanned from any direction. Additionally, two-dimensional bar codes are smaller and can store more data than their one-dimensional counterparts. Despite such advantages, two-dimensional bar codes account for a much smaller portion of total bar code usage than one-dimensional bar codes.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox?
(A) Many smaller stores do not use bar codes at all because of the expense.
(B) For some products, the amount of data necessary to be coded is small enough to fit fully on a one-dimensional bar code.
(C) Two-dimensional bar codes are, on average, less expensive than one-dimensional bar codes.
(D) Two-dimensional bar codes can also be scanned by consumer devices, such as cell phones.
(E) One-dimensional bar codes last longer and are less prone to error than two-dimensional bar codes.
The Question statement says
Quote:
Despite such advantages, two-dimensional bar codes account for a much smaller portion of total bar code usage than one-dimensional bar codes.
So we need to point to any disadvantage that two-dimensional bar codes have -
(A) Many smaller stores do not use bar codes at all because of the expense. -
Not relevant in our case. Good to know.(B) For some products, the amount of data necessary to be coded is small enough to fit fully on a one-dimensional bar code. -
But that do not give any reason why two-dimensional codes are not used.(C) Two-dimensional bar codes are, on average, less expensive than one-dimensional bar codes. -
This points an advantage. Not helping.
(D) Two-dimensional bar codes can also be scanned by consumer devices, such as cell phones. -
Same as above. Points an advantage.
(E) One-dimensional bar codes last longer and are less prone to error than two-dimensional bar codes. -
Shows disadvantage wrt one-dimensional codes. Direct comparison. Hence our answer.Correct Ans is (E).