Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
26 Feb 2025, 21:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
40% (00:21) correct
60%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 5
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Quantum computing, while still nascent, promises dramatic speed‐ups for problems such as large‐scale optimization, molecular simulation and cryptography. The hardware, however, is expensive, power‐hungry and must operate in ultra‐cold, shielded environments. As a result, stand‐alone quantum machines remain out of reach for most universities, laboratories and private firms that might benefit from them.
One widely discussed remedy is to place quantum processors inside secure cloud data‐centers and let users rent time on the hardware just as they rent classical virtual machines today. Cloud vendors already maintain the specialized infrastructure—cooling systems, vibration isolation and continuous calibration—that quantum chips require. Therefore, embedding quantum processors in cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing and, in turn, accelerate technological innovation across industries.
The potential advantages are two-fold. First, the elastic capacity of modern clouds means a research group can spin up hundreds of quantum instances for a short period, pay only for what it uses and scale back to zero when the experiment ends. Second, pairing quantum algorithms with the massive storage and classical pre- and post-processing power available in hyperscale data-centers could sharpen applications ranging from portfolio optimization and traffic routing to drug-discovery simulations. Because access is via the internet, geography no longer limits who can experiment with cutting-edge techniques; a start-up in Nairobi can tap the same qubit pool as a Fortune 500 firm in New York.
Substantial hurdles remain. Qubits—the basic units of quantum information—are fragile, decohering in microseconds unless protected by elaborate error‐correction codes. Routing many users’ jobs through a shared quantum back‐end also demands new scheduling algorithms, latency‐tolerant protocols and secure key‐exchange mechanisms. Current research concentrates on stabilizing qubits, perfecting error‐mitigation and designing resource managers that can juggle classical and quantum workloads efficiently. Only if these engineering challenges are solved will quantum‐cloud services fulfil their promise of broad accessibility and rapid progress.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s conclusion that hosting quantum processors on cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing depends?
A. Most organizations prefer renting remote computing resources to maintaining on‐site hardware.
B. Researchers today cannot afford stand‐alone quantum computers.
C. Quantum‐resistant classical algorithms will not render quantum speed‐ups irrelevant.
D. Error‐correction and resource‐management techniques will enable quantum processors to operate
E. Government regulations will not prohibit the remote use of quantum processors.
One widely discussed remedy is to place quantum processors inside secure cloud data‐centers and let users rent time on the hardware just as they rent classical virtual machines today. Cloud vendors already maintain the specialized infrastructure—cooling systems, vibration isolation and continuous calibration—that quantum chips require. Therefore, embedding quantum processors in cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing and, in turn, accelerate technological innovation across industries.
The potential advantages are two-fold. First, the elastic capacity of modern clouds means a research group can spin up hundreds of quantum instances for a short period, pay only for what it uses and scale back to zero when the experiment ends. Second, pairing quantum algorithms with the massive storage and classical pre- and post-processing power available in hyperscale data-centers could sharpen applications ranging from portfolio optimization and traffic routing to drug-discovery simulations. Because access is via the internet, geography no longer limits who can experiment with cutting-edge techniques; a start-up in Nairobi can tap the same qubit pool as a Fortune 500 firm in New York.
Substantial hurdles remain. Qubits—the basic units of quantum information—are fragile, decohering in microseconds unless protected by elaborate error‐correction codes. Routing many users’ jobs through a shared quantum back‐end also demands new scheduling algorithms, latency‐tolerant protocols and secure key‐exchange mechanisms. Current research concentrates on stabilizing qubits, perfecting error‐mitigation and designing resource managers that can juggle classical and quantum workloads efficiently. Only if these engineering challenges are solved will quantum‐cloud services fulfil their promise of broad accessibility and rapid progress.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s conclusion that hosting quantum processors on cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing depends?
A. Most organizations prefer renting remote computing resources to maintaining on‐site hardware.
B. Researchers today cannot afford stand‐alone quantum computers.
C. Quantum‐resistant classical algorithms will not render quantum speed‐ups irrelevant.
D. Error‐correction and resource‐management techniques will enable quantum processors to operate
E. Government regulations will not prohibit the remote use of quantum processors.
26 Feb 2025, 21:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Quantum computing, while still nascent, promises dramatic speed‐ups for problems such as large‐scale optimization, molecular simulation and cryptography. The hardware, however, is expensive, power‐hungry and must operate in ultra‐cold, shielded environments. As a result, stand‐alone quantum machines remain out of reach for most universities, laboratories and private firms that might benefit from them.
One widely discussed remedy is to place quantum processors inside secure cloud data‐centers and let users rent time on the hardware just as they rent classical virtual machines today. Cloud vendors already maintain the specialized infrastructure—cooling systems, vibration isolation and continuous calibration—that quantum chips require. Therefore, embedding quantum processors in cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing and, in turn, accelerate technological innovation across industries.
The potential advantages are two-fold. First, the elastic capacity of modern clouds means a research group can spin up hundreds of quantum instances for a short period, pay only for what it uses and scale back to zero when the experiment ends. Second, pairing quantum algorithms with the massive storage and classical pre- and post-processing power available in hyperscale data-centers could sharpen applications ranging from portfolio optimization and traffic routing to drug-discovery simulations. Because access is via the internet, geography no longer limits who can experiment with cutting-edge techniques; a start-up in Nairobi can tap the same qubit pool as a Fortune 500 firm in New York.
Substantial hurdles remain. Qubits—the basic units of quantum information—are fragile, decohering in microseconds unless protected by elaborate error‐correction codes. Routing many users’ jobs through a shared quantum back‐end also demands new scheduling algorithms, latency‐tolerant protocols and secure key‐exchange mechanisms. Current research concentrates on stabilizing qubits, perfecting error‐mitigation and designing resource managers that can juggle classical and quantum workloads efficiently. Only if these engineering challenges are solved will quantum‐cloud services fulfil their promise of broad accessibility and rapid progress.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s conclusion that hosting quantum processors on cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing depends?
A. Most organizations prefer renting remote computing resources to maintaining on‐site hardware.
B. Researchers today cannot afford stand‐alone quantum computers.
C. Quantum‐resistant classical algorithms will not render quantum speed‐ups irrelevant.
D. Error‐correction and resource‐management techniques will enable quantum processors to operate
E. Government regulations will not prohibit the remote use of quantum processors.
A) Incorrect. The conclusion would still hold even if some organizations preferred on‐site hardware; the claim hinges on technical feasibility and availability, not on user preferences about renting versus owning equipment.
B) Incorrect. While high upfront cost is mentioned as one obstacle, the author’s argument does not depend on researchers being universally unable to buy stand‐alone machines, cloud hosting could broaden access regardless of whether a few well‐funded labs can afford their own systems.
C) Incorrect. The passage never discusses the future competitiveness of classical cryptography or “quantum‐resistant” algorithms; that issue is outside the scope of the argument about expanding access through cloud integration.
D) Correct Answer. The passage notes that qubit fragility, error correction, and workload management are major hurdles. If these challenges cannot be managed within cloud servers, wider access would not be practical, so the argument relies on the assumption that such techniques will work.
E) Incorrect. The author’s reasoning about technical access via the cloud does not rest on the absence of government restrictions; the passage is silent on legal or policy barriers.
Answer: D
Quantum computing, while still nascent, promises dramatic speed‐ups for problems such as large‐scale optimization, molecular simulation and cryptography. The hardware, however, is expensive, power‐hungry and must operate in ultra‐cold, shielded environments. As a result, stand‐alone quantum machines remain out of reach for most universities, laboratories and private firms that might benefit from them.
One widely discussed remedy is to place quantum processors inside secure cloud data‐centers and let users rent time on the hardware just as they rent classical virtual machines today. Cloud vendors already maintain the specialized infrastructure—cooling systems, vibration isolation and continuous calibration—that quantum chips require. Therefore, embedding quantum processors in cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing and, in turn, accelerate technological innovation across industries.
The potential advantages are two-fold. First, the elastic capacity of modern clouds means a research group can spin up hundreds of quantum instances for a short period, pay only for what it uses and scale back to zero when the experiment ends. Second, pairing quantum algorithms with the massive storage and classical pre- and post-processing power available in hyperscale data-centers could sharpen applications ranging from portfolio optimization and traffic routing to drug-discovery simulations. Because access is via the internet, geography no longer limits who can experiment with cutting-edge techniques; a start-up in Nairobi can tap the same qubit pool as a Fortune 500 firm in New York.
Substantial hurdles remain. Qubits—the basic units of quantum information—are fragile, decohering in microseconds unless protected by elaborate error‐correction codes. Routing many users’ jobs through a shared quantum back‐end also demands new scheduling algorithms, latency‐tolerant protocols and secure key‐exchange mechanisms. Current research concentrates on stabilizing qubits, perfecting error‐mitigation and designing resource managers that can juggle classical and quantum workloads efficiently. Only if these engineering challenges are solved will quantum‐cloud services fulfil their promise of broad accessibility and rapid progress.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s conclusion that hosting quantum processors on cloud platforms will give many more organizations practical access to quantum computing depends?
A. Most organizations prefer renting remote computing resources to maintaining on‐site hardware.
B. Researchers today cannot afford stand‐alone quantum computers.
C. Quantum‐resistant classical algorithms will not render quantum speed‐ups irrelevant.
D. Error‐correction and resource‐management techniques will enable quantum processors to operate
E. Government regulations will not prohibit the remote use of quantum processors.
A) Incorrect. The conclusion would still hold even if some organizations preferred on‐site hardware; the claim hinges on technical feasibility and availability, not on user preferences about renting versus owning equipment.
B) Incorrect. While high upfront cost is mentioned as one obstacle, the author’s argument does not depend on researchers being universally unable to buy stand‐alone machines, cloud hosting could broaden access regardless of whether a few well‐funded labs can afford their own systems.
C) Incorrect. The passage never discusses the future competitiveness of classical cryptography or “quantum‐resistant” algorithms; that issue is outside the scope of the argument about expanding access through cloud integration.
D) Correct Answer. The passage notes that qubit fragility, error correction, and workload management are major hurdles. If these challenges cannot be managed within cloud servers, wider access would not be practical, so the argument relies on the assumption that such techniques will work.
E) Incorrect. The author’s reasoning about technical access via the cloud does not rest on the absence of government restrictions; the passage is silent on legal or policy barriers.
Answer: D
24 Jul 2025, 00:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, the passage says the challenges need to be addressed. How can we infer that it means that the challenges can be effectively managed ? For all we know, the author asks for initiatives in the future..
