Computer operating system software has become increasingly standardized. But when a large business with multiple, lin...

Kimberlydo4413 April 6, 2018

Please Explain A

I don't understand how A is wrong. We are given that if a business introduces variations in its system, unauthorized access to all the computers would be eliminated, which means they have a means to prevent viruses. So if they don't have variation, they would have viruses. How is this wrong?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mehran April 6, 2018

Hey there, thanks for your post.

Let's assess the statement in question:
"If [a large business with multiple, linked computer systems] introduced minor variations into its operating system software, unauthorized access to all the computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated."

You can diagram this as:
IMV ==> almost no UA
(if introduce minor variations, then almost no unauthorized access)

You also know that
UA ==> can destroy data
(a "computer vandal's" unauthorized access via a virus can lead to destruction of data)

Answer choice (A) is an incorrect negation of this statement, and so it is wrong:
not IMV ==> loss of data

We are not told that the failure to introduce minor variations (not IMV) is alone *sufficient* for anything. We are just told that, if minor variations are introduced, unauthorized access can be curtailed.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.