The argument talks about how, despite people learning a lot about computers since the 1970s, the average person still may not understand the internal details well enough to make a smart computer purchase. The argument suggests that companies can take advantage of this lack of knowledge.
A. "manufacturers of internal computer components price their products according to the development of trends in the consumer market"
This talks about how manufacturers set prices based on trends, but it doesn't explain why companies can exploit the lack of knowledge mentioned in the argument.
B. "the average consumer often relies on the advice of a relative or friend who has expert understanding"
This suggests that people seek advice from knowledgeable friends or relatives, but it doesn't explain how companies exploit the lack of knowledge.
C. "although the differences in the quality of components are indiscernible to the average user, they are significant to the companies in terms of cost" - indiscernible meaning
(unclear)This explains that even though people can't tell the differences in component quality, those differences matter to companies in terms of cost. This aligns with the argument and provides a logical reason for exploitation.
D. "there are more people concerned with the functional capabilities of a computer than those who concentrate on the exterior design"
This talks about people's preferences, but it doesn't directly address how companies exploit the lack of knowledge mentioned in the argument.
E. "Internet forums have affected the way consumers purchase computers, ultimately leading to the minimization of misinformation"
This talks about the impact of internet forums but doesn't explain how companies exploit the lack of knowledge.
IMO-C