Years ago, some in the government's intelligence community feared the

But just because something is developed, we can't assumed it will be used right? Maybe this encryption is designed to secure online banking, which won't affect the espionage efforts of the government.

What's the source of this question please? And do we have an OE?

Togh question
Conclusion: The government experts concluded that these private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage.

Here if we find that these company didn't pose the greatest risk to government then the conlcusion is weakened

Option C says the same
D and E have no impact on the conclusion
B says other firms are also scrutinizing. So What. B is also not a weakner.
A een supports the conclusion a bit.
Hence C is the answer.

Somebody plz explain why B is wrong and howcome C is right?

My thought process:
Conclusion: these government experts saw support for their conclusion when an encryption algorithm that government experts could not break began appearing in countless emails.

(in my mind) the govt experts saw support...that means they are now able to break this encrytion....so to weaken this... option B states.... more the advertisements more other ppl scrutinize the algo. hence, the conclusion (advertisements instead of helping creates more problems) is weakened.

Someone plz explain !!

This is a little tough to analyse ; so I used POE to get the best answer . D AND E ARE clear OOS . Left A , B and C

A) Shortly before the government experts reached their conclusions, two private security companies each claimed to have developed "the world's strongest email encryption algorithm" .
here there are two companies stating they have the strongest algo that the govt may not be able to crack - and these may hamper thier own plans . doesnt weaken

B) The private security firms' decision to advertise their products and sell them publicly led to other members of the private sector and academia scrutinizing the encryption algorithms. - Other firms are scruntinizing means they are taking a deeper look at the algo ; this doesnt have much affect on the conc. moreover it is not even saying the algos get cracked by other firms ; even if it did C clearly wins here


C) An open-source encryption algorithm, developed by an academic and freely available from popular websites, is recognized by numerous ex-government code breakers as the most unbreakable algorithm ever developed.
okay so here if u read the option carefully , we can see that these algos are available on the websites by some academic or free style programmer so its not the private firm to be blamed because the algos are freely available to use and they are as stated by numerous ex-government code breakers as the most unbreakable algorithm ever developed.

SO C WINS the race against B and rest of the others tooo

D) An enemy government recently succeeded in placing a spy within the government espionage operations referred to above.
Clearly OOS
E) To strengthen the reputation of the private security firms, employees of these firms publish information about the strength of their products and the benefits of using them.
Clearly OOS

Left A , b and C

Why is option d wrong ? I know it is talking about something, which isn’t mentioned in the argument given above, but it seems like an alternate cause of the government espionage not being successful..

Please help!!

Posted from my mobile device

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The government experts concluded that "private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage" and they supported this conclusion by assuming that the unbreakable encryption algorithm in emails came from the private security firms, which had just begun selling encryption algorithms. In order to weaken the conclusion of the government experts, you need to find evidence supporting the belief that the unbreakable algorithm did not come from the private security firms but from another source (such as free open-source developers).

A. This answer strengthens the conclusion of the government experts by bolstering the claim that the products developed by the private security firms were very difficult to break—and this was the fear of some government experts.

B. This answer does not state that the "other members of the private sector and academia" broke the encryption algorithm and we cannot assume this. If this were true, the algorithm would not be as strong as the government experts suspected and it would almost certainly not be "encryption algorithm that government experts could not break."

C. This answer undermines the government experts' conclusion that the private security firms posed "the biggest risk" as ex-government code breakers admitted that a public-sector open-source freely-available product posed the most difficulty in breaking.

D. This answer is not relevant since a foreign government's ability to infiltrate an espionage operation is not related to the conclusion that the difficulty experienced in breaking email encryption occurred because of products released by private telecommunications companies. Further, this answer provides no basis to conclude or even assume that the private security firms were not the source of the unbreakable algorithm.

E. The publication of information about the strength and benefit of the privately-developed encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the government.