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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
14 Aug 2025, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
14 Aug 2025, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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 is a challenging question to digest. You may have to read it a few times to get the relationship between who the commentator and where the voice of the editorial stands. Basically in this scenario, the commentators argue that the spike in Malicious mobile apps on independent app stores is the results of Major App stores imposing new restrictions. The editorial, in turn, argues that this is not the case (implied) because those delisted developers have not released any new apps on the alternative marketplaces.
The Second step is to figure out the problem and how to potentially weaken the argument of the editorial. This is a bit of a paradox question disguised as a Weaken one. What we need to do is argue (somehow) that even though delisted developers have not released any new apps, their absence from the app store is still somehow responsible for the surge in malicious apps on independent app stores. This seems like a pretty unique situation, so should not be hard to get to the answer choice that fits all of the requirements and explains this complex situation but this is because we have done the ground work.
(A) Correct. This is the best weakening option. This alternative explanation suggests that while the original developers didn’t move to alternative marketplaces, other malicious actors copied their apps and exploited the gap left behind by the removals. This supports the commentators’ view that the major platforms’ actions indirectly caused the surge by creating an opportunity for impersonators. It undermines the editorial’s assumption that only the removed developers could have been responsible. Basically it says that while there is no direct link, there is a pretty strong indirect (detour) that exists.
(B) Incorrect. This choice explains why malicious apps might thrive on independent marketplaces, but does not explain why the recent surge has happened or how it may be linked to the restrictions on the major app store platforms.
(C) Incorrect. This choice weakens the editorial mildly, as it introduces new culprits, but it does not link these developers to the restrictions imposed by major platforms. Without that link, it’s not strong enough to seriously weaken the editorial’s counterpoint and thus this is not the best weakener, though weakener it is.
(D) Incorrect. Irrelevant. Coordination between platforms has no bearing on the link between the policy changes and the surge in malicious apps. It neither weakens nor strengthens either argument.
(E) Incorrect. Out of scope. Our argument is about developers and apps, not about user preferences. This option does not weaken the editorial at all, and if anything strengthens it.
Answer: A
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 is a challenging question to digest. You may have to read it a few times to get the relationship between who the commentator and where the voice of the editorial stands. Basically in this scenario, the commentators argue that the spike in Malicious mobile apps on independent app stores is the results of Major App stores imposing new restrictions. The editorial, in turn, argues that this is not the case (implied) because those delisted developers have not released any new apps on the alternative marketplaces.
The Second step is to figure out the problem and how to potentially weaken the argument of the editorial. This is a bit of a paradox question disguised as a Weaken one. What we need to do is argue (somehow) that even though delisted developers have not released any new apps, their absence from the app store is still somehow responsible for the surge in malicious apps on independent app stores. This seems like a pretty unique situation, so should not be hard to get to the answer choice that fits all of the requirements and explains this complex situation but this is because we have done the ground work.
(A) Correct. This is the best weakening option. This alternative explanation suggests that while the original developers didn’t move to alternative marketplaces, other malicious actors copied their apps and exploited the gap left behind by the removals. This supports the commentators’ view that the major platforms’ actions indirectly caused the surge by creating an opportunity for impersonators. It undermines the editorial’s assumption that only the removed developers could have been responsible. Basically it says that while there is no direct link, there is a pretty strong indirect (detour) that exists.
(B) Incorrect. This choice explains why malicious apps might thrive on independent marketplaces, but does not explain why the recent surge has happened or how it may be linked to the restrictions on the major app store platforms.
(C) Incorrect. This choice weakens the editorial mildly, as it introduces new culprits, but it does not link these developers to the restrictions imposed by major platforms. Without that link, it’s not strong enough to seriously weaken the editorial’s counterpoint and thus this is not the best weakener, though weakener it is.
(D) Incorrect. Irrelevant. Coordination between platforms has no bearing on the link between the policy changes and the surge in malicious apps. It neither weakens nor strengthens either argument.
(E) Incorrect. Out of scope. Our argument is about developers and apps, not about user preferences. This option does not weaken the editorial at all, and if anything strengthens it.
Answer: A
avigoesforMBA
Joined: 21 May 2024
Last visit: 02 May 2026
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Schools: Sloan (MIT)
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q79 V87 DI82 
GMAT Focus 2: 665 Q82 V85 DI82
Products:
22 Sep 2025, 12:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
hi bb,
Some help with the answer please?
A) doesn't talk about the impact of the restrictions, does it? It just says that malicious apps on independent platforms resemble legitimate apps
What does a legitimate app mean here? A non-malicious one, one that's legit been removed (makes less sense?). Unrelated developers also doesn't help the case in any way
C) on the flip side, clearly says that shortly after the policy changes (restrictions imposed, I assume), several developers started targeting meaning they shifted their focus from major platforms to independent ones with "less compliance checks" which in turn caused the surge.
IMO, C is a better weakener but happe to be proved wrong!:D
Some help with the answer please?
A) doesn't talk about the impact of the restrictions, does it? It just says that malicious apps on independent platforms resemble legitimate apps
What does a legitimate app mean here? A non-malicious one, one that's legit been removed (makes less sense?). Unrelated developers also doesn't help the case in any way
C) on the flip side, clearly says that shortly after the policy changes (restrictions imposed, I assume), several developers started targeting meaning they shifted their focus from major platforms to independent ones with "less compliance checks" which in turn caused the surge.
IMO, C is a better weakener but happe to be proved wrong!:D
