A standard problem for computer security is that passwords that have to be typed on a computer keyboard are comparati...
MrLawNovember 11, 2019
D??
D makes little sense, especially with B as an alternative. So what if the computer doesn't give access to the right user? The premise is that it has never given access to the wrong user. Even if a few correct users are blocked, that doesn't change the fact that no incorrect users were admitted.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Good question! Here is the problem with B. The author actually acknowledges the small amount of data, and factors this into the conclusion. The key phrase is "if this result can be repeated in an operational setting..." Here, the author admits to the limitations to the small trial, and qualifies the conclusion accordingly. This softens the conclusion somewhat, protecting it from the criticism given by answer choice B.
Now let's look at the rest of the conclusion: "...then there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and to no one else." A requirement of this conclusion is that the people who are authorized are given access. If these people are unjustly locked out of the system, then the conclusion is flawed.
The only information from the trial is that unauthorized people are never accepted. But do we know if authorized people are sometimes falsely rejected? No. This error could still occur, so the author cannot rightfully conclude that the voice system will everything it is supposed to do.
kensJanuary 31, 2022
I want to know if I understood the passage correctly. So, the new system is capable of denying access to unauthorized users, but it's unclear whether it could accept access from authorized users. Is this correct?
If so, I don't see why the answer needs to establish the latter: t's unclear whether it could accept access from authorized users. Isn't the "problem" discussed in the original passage merely referring to the inability of computers to deny unauthorized access? Why test the new system to see if it can properly accept authorized users? (I hope this makes sense...)
Thanks in advance
Jay-EtterJanuary 31, 2022
Hi @kens, this is a good analysis here. When the stimulus says "the system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer's data" that means they correctly rejected everyone it should have rejected, but it may have rejected other people who should have been accepted. Maybe the new system just rejected everyone, for example. The issue with the argument is if the system is just rejecting everyone or nearly everyone, then we can't conclude that it will be able to give access to those who are entitled but nobody else. Because maybe it won't properly give access to those who are entitled.
