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 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
Updated on: 09 Oct 2014, 00:24
Originally posted by itzmyzone911 on 02 Oct 2014, 13:30.
Last edited by itzmyzone911 on 09 Oct 2014, 00:24, edited 4 times in total.
Last edited by itzmyzone911 on 09 Oct 2014, 00:24, edited 4 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
39% (02:26) correct
61%
(02:51)
wrong
based on 258
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In order to ensure automatic updates for commercial softwares, firms using them are required to procure an original license for each copy of the software. Firms typically purchase multiple such ‘shared’ licenses such that the software is supported on a WAN (Wide Area Network) network and is available to any random user on a one-license-per-computer basis. Hence, when the total number of computers accessing the software at any point equals the number of licenses procured, then any further waiting user would not be able to access the software, unless existing active users log off their licenses, making them available on the network. However, despite the ‘sharing’ feature of these licenses, occasionally, waiting users using a single computer have been unable to access Pro-CAD, a commercial software, even after some active Pro-CAD users had logged off.
Which of the following, if true, would MOST help to resolve the apparent paradox presented in the argument?
A. Occasional instances of network breakdown are always known to give rise to software inaccessibility issues for waiting users even after some active users have logged off the network.
B. Most commercial softwares, such as Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users only after a certain number of active users working on the software have logged off the network.
C. Some commercial softwares, such as Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users in order of their waiting times only, one just logged in as a waiting user given the least priority to access the software once some active users have logged off.
D. Most high-end commercial softwares, including Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users only after users have logged off a certain number of computers using active licenses.
E. Service teams later reported that many Pro-CAD licenses had actually become corrupt, thus reducing the total number of valid licenses available on the network.
PL DO NOT SCROLL DOWN FOR THE EXPLANATION BEFORE SOLVING THE SAME PASSAGE WITH A DIFFERENT STEM AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:
in-order-to-ensure-automatic-updates-for-commercial-softwares-firms-u-185866.html
Which of the following, if true, would MOST help to resolve the apparent paradox presented in the argument?
A. Occasional instances of network breakdown are always known to give rise to software inaccessibility issues for waiting users even after some active users have logged off the network.
B. Most commercial softwares, such as Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users only after a certain number of active users working on the software have logged off the network.
C. Some commercial softwares, such as Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users in order of their waiting times only, one just logged in as a waiting user given the least priority to access the software once some active users have logged off.
D. Most high-end commercial softwares, including Pro-CAD, are set to restore accessibility to waiting users only after users have logged off a certain number of computers using active licenses.
E. Service teams later reported that many Pro-CAD licenses had actually become corrupt, thus reducing the total number of valid licenses available on the network.
PL DO NOT SCROLL DOWN FOR THE EXPLANATION BEFORE SOLVING THE SAME PASSAGE WITH A DIFFERENT STEM AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:
in-order-to-ensure-automatic-updates-for-commercial-softwares-firms-u-185866.html
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
05 Oct 2014, 22:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
For those many who got it wrong, here's an explanation. Hope this helps... 
In order to ensure automatic updates for commercial softwares, firms using them are required to procure an original license for each copy of the software. Firms typically purchase multiple such ‘shared’ licenses such that the software is supported on a WAN (Wide Area Network) network and is available to any random user on a one-license-per-computer basis. Hence, when the total number of computers accessing the software at any point equals the number of licenses procured, then any further waiting user would not be able to access the software, unless existing active users log off their licenses, making them available on the network. However, despite the ‘sharing’ feature of these licenses, occasionally, waiting users using a single computer have been unable to access Pro-CAD, a commercial software, even after some active Pro-CAD users had logged off.
Which of the following, if true, would MOST help to resolve the apparent paradox presented in the argument?
(..Umm..Perhaps the number of waiting users itself if greater than the number of active Pro-CAD users that have logged off can explain the discrepancy why SOME waiting users haven't been able to access Pro-CAD after some active users have logged off)..
CAUTION! Note that the stimulus casually says that 'waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD'. This could be construed to mean that either ALL or SOME waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD. We need an option that takes care of the generality presented by the stimulus by considering both these scenarios.
D is the only option that resolves the paradox completely. D essentially says that accessibility to waiting users is restorable subject to a condition that the number of active licenses that have been logged off reach a certain pre-defined minimum, a figure that has been 'set' by the software administrator team. For example, let this pre-defined number be 'set' to 10. Now, if only 5 active licenses have been logged off, then NONE of the waiting users will be able to access Pro-CAD. However, if 10 or more licenses have been logged off, then at least one user (SOME) will definitely be able to access Pro-CAD. This option clearly demonstrates why waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD ocassionaly, i.e. on occasions when ALL waiting users would be MADE to wait if the 'set' limit of free licenses is not reached and on occasions when SOME are MADE to wait when the total no. of waiting users originally is more than the no. of licenses set free (in excess of the 'set' limit)
C could help to resolve the paradox partially, but is not as all-encompassing as D is. Option C just arrives at a definite conclusion by stating that at most only SOME (NOT ALL, in a scenario when no. of waiting users is greater than that of licenses set free) waiting users would be left waiting, whereas option D, a much broader option accounts for the generality by saying that if a certain pre-defined threshold of 'free' licenses is reached then only at most SOME (in a similar scenario as highlighted previously) will be left waiting, otherwise definitely ALL will be left waiting.
Also, note here, that option C actually states something, the logical outcome of which accords with common sense, making it a subset of option D. Saying simply, C just implies that 'If the no. of waiting users occasionally has been greater than that of the licenses that were logged off, then SOME will logically anyways be left waiting.'..Quite simple, isn't it?. Indeed if so simplistic were the case, the author would actually never spend time in complaining about the inconvenience to those SOME waiting users by highlighting it as a paradox. More so, we are not really bothered about the waiting times actually to determine who got the license but whether none of them got even one. Since C does not go beyond to give any justification for a situation where ALL waiting users are kept waiting in spite of even one license set free, it does not hold much water to stand among the best contenders.
Option B is a trap..I would personally call this the second best option for the question. Option B does resolve the paradox, but not as neatly and definitely as D does. If one looks at the intricacy B presents, one would realize that B actually considers the paradox presented by BOTH the scenarios as explained in the previous paragraph. What it doesn't do, however, is that it does not provide a unique solution to explain why ALL waiting users may be unable to access Pro-CAD in the given situation, enforcing another dilemma. On one hand, it can be conspicuously seen that until the pre-defined 'set' minimum of active users logged off hasn't reached, ALL waiting users will be kept waiting. On the other hand, however, it would require a slightly astute mind to observe that since an already active user could have accessed as many computers with Pro-CAD (bear in mind the one-license-per-computer restriction specified in the stimulus)and thereby if the total number of active users using all the licenses itself is less than the pre-defined 'set' number of active users (a situation indeed possible), then even when all licenses are set free, ALL waiting users would be at bay...Upon analyzing these (highlighted) situations it can be realized that we have an either/or scenario when ALL are made to wait…2 DIFFERENT solutions(aah
…this JUST fell short of the correct answer ) . Technically speaking, this method of creating a buffer set of (more than one) free licenses before making them available to waiting users is flawed as seen and hence may not be even considered by the license administrator.
A is another trap. Particularly for the question (LEAST resolves the paradox), this option may prima facie give a feeling that it does not pertain to anything related with the argument (such as license, user, etc.). However, note that it DOES resolve the paradox somewhat by citing a slightly out-of-the-context alternate cause for the discrepancy. Some active users log off-->WAN Network breakdown occurs all across-->License not available not only to ALL waiting users but also to any other user including the remaining active users who were still working on Pro-CAD. Note any other trivial issue like computer breakdown (SOME waiting) or supply breakdown (ALL or SOME or ALL and SOME) COULD HAVE ALSO addressed the discrepancy partially in the given context.
Now, the question is why it does not resolve the paradox completely. Two reasons: First, as explained previously, this option explains the paradox for an ALL scenario only. Second, just because network breakdowns always result in software inaccessibility, the latter need not always be a result of the former. There could be other reasons responsible for Pro-CAD inaccessibility, a fact that intensifies the paradox further.
E does not serve even an iota of our purpose. E DOES NOT resolve the paradox AT ALL and is too digressing to resolve the discrepancy presented. First, this option nowhere states that the service teams have stated their findings as a cause for license unavailability in the situation under consideration. It may actually just be a separate correlative fact that has come to light while the service teams were working to solve the apparent discrepancy raised under question (by the head of department). Second, the fact that the total number of licenses have reduced does not even remotely pertain to our argument. Even if the company had originally purchased 100 licenses, out of which 10 have conked, leaving the users to work with just 90, then the entire workforce might as well work with 90 only. The paradox actually arises only when an active user logs off one license at least and even one waiting user is still not able to access. An astute manager (who desires to resolve the license unavailability to waiting users) would definitely have the audacity to dismiss these facts presented by the service teams as outright irrelevant to the discrepancy cited.
In order to ensure automatic updates for commercial softwares, firms using them are required to procure an original license for each copy of the software. Firms typically purchase multiple such ‘shared’ licenses such that the software is supported on a WAN (Wide Area Network) network and is available to any random user on a one-license-per-computer basis. Hence, when the total number of computers accessing the software at any point equals the number of licenses procured, then any further waiting user would not be able to access the software, unless existing active users log off their licenses, making them available on the network. However, despite the ‘sharing’ feature of these licenses, occasionally, waiting users using a single computer have been unable to access Pro-CAD, a commercial software, even after some active Pro-CAD users had logged off.
Which of the following, if true, would MOST help to resolve the apparent paradox presented in the argument?
(..Umm..Perhaps the number of waiting users itself if greater than the number of active Pro-CAD users that have logged off can explain the discrepancy why SOME waiting users haven't been able to access Pro-CAD after some active users have logged off)..
CAUTION! Note that the stimulus casually says that 'waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD'. This could be construed to mean that either ALL or SOME waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD. We need an option that takes care of the generality presented by the stimulus by considering both these scenarios.
D is the only option that resolves the paradox completely. D essentially says that accessibility to waiting users is restorable subject to a condition that the number of active licenses that have been logged off reach a certain pre-defined minimum, a figure that has been 'set' by the software administrator team. For example, let this pre-defined number be 'set' to 10. Now, if only 5 active licenses have been logged off, then NONE of the waiting users will be able to access Pro-CAD. However, if 10 or more licenses have been logged off, then at least one user (SOME) will definitely be able to access Pro-CAD. This option clearly demonstrates why waiting users are unable to access Pro-CAD ocassionaly, i.e. on occasions when ALL waiting users would be MADE to wait if the 'set' limit of free licenses is not reached and on occasions when SOME are MADE to wait when the total no. of waiting users originally is more than the no. of licenses set free (in excess of the 'set' limit)
C could help to resolve the paradox partially, but is not as all-encompassing as D is. Option C just arrives at a definite conclusion by stating that at most only SOME (NOT ALL, in a scenario when no. of waiting users is greater than that of licenses set free) waiting users would be left waiting, whereas option D, a much broader option accounts for the generality by saying that if a certain pre-defined threshold of 'free' licenses is reached then only at most SOME (in a similar scenario as highlighted previously) will be left waiting, otherwise definitely ALL will be left waiting.
Also, note here, that option C actually states something, the logical outcome of which accords with common sense, making it a subset of option D. Saying simply, C just implies that 'If the no. of waiting users occasionally has been greater than that of the licenses that were logged off, then SOME will logically anyways be left waiting.'..Quite simple, isn't it?. Indeed if so simplistic were the case, the author would actually never spend time in complaining about the inconvenience to those SOME waiting users by highlighting it as a paradox. More so, we are not really bothered about the waiting times actually to determine who got the license but whether none of them got even one. Since C does not go beyond to give any justification for a situation where ALL waiting users are kept waiting in spite of even one license set free, it does not hold much water to stand among the best contenders.
Option B is a trap..I would personally call this the second best option for the question. Option B does resolve the paradox, but not as neatly and definitely as D does. If one looks at the intricacy B presents, one would realize that B actually considers the paradox presented by BOTH the scenarios as explained in the previous paragraph. What it doesn't do, however, is that it does not provide a unique solution to explain why ALL waiting users may be unable to access Pro-CAD in the given situation, enforcing another dilemma. On one hand, it can be conspicuously seen that until the pre-defined 'set' minimum of active users logged off hasn't reached, ALL waiting users will be kept waiting. On the other hand, however, it would require a slightly astute mind to observe that since an already active user could have accessed as many computers with Pro-CAD (bear in mind the one-license-per-computer restriction specified in the stimulus)and thereby if the total number of active users using all the licenses itself is less than the pre-defined 'set' number of active users (a situation indeed possible), then even when all licenses are set free, ALL waiting users would be at bay...Upon analyzing these (highlighted) situations it can be realized that we have an either/or scenario when ALL are made to wait…2 DIFFERENT solutions(aah
…this JUST fell short of the correct answer ) . Technically speaking, this method of creating a buffer set of (more than one) free licenses before making them available to waiting users is flawed as seen and hence may not be even considered by the license administrator.A is another trap. Particularly for the question (LEAST resolves the paradox), this option may prima facie give a feeling that it does not pertain to anything related with the argument (such as license, user, etc.). However, note that it DOES resolve the paradox somewhat by citing a slightly out-of-the-context alternate cause for the discrepancy. Some active users log off-->WAN Network breakdown occurs all across-->License not available not only to ALL waiting users but also to any other user including the remaining active users who were still working on Pro-CAD. Note any other trivial issue like computer breakdown (SOME waiting) or supply breakdown (ALL or SOME or ALL and SOME) COULD HAVE ALSO addressed the discrepancy partially in the given context.
Now, the question is why it does not resolve the paradox completely. Two reasons: First, as explained previously, this option explains the paradox for an ALL scenario only. Second, just because network breakdowns always result in software inaccessibility, the latter need not always be a result of the former. There could be other reasons responsible for Pro-CAD inaccessibility, a fact that intensifies the paradox further.
E does not serve even an iota of our purpose. E DOES NOT resolve the paradox AT ALL and is too digressing to resolve the discrepancy presented. First, this option nowhere states that the service teams have stated their findings as a cause for license unavailability in the situation under consideration. It may actually just be a separate correlative fact that has come to light while the service teams were working to solve the apparent discrepancy raised under question (by the head of department). Second, the fact that the total number of licenses have reduced does not even remotely pertain to our argument. Even if the company had originally purchased 100 licenses, out of which 10 have conked, leaving the users to work with just 90, then the entire workforce might as well work with 90 only. The paradox actually arises only when an active user logs off one license at least and even one waiting user is still not able to access. An astute manager (who desires to resolve the license unavailability to waiting users) would definitely have the audacity to dismiss these facts presented by the service teams as outright irrelevant to the discrepancy cited.
General Discussion
24 Jan 2021, 05:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
A silly question in my opinion. There are multiple options which help resolve the paradox. And I don't think one option helps to resolve a paradox more than the others (or at least one other).
