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

shunhe April 27, 2020

Hi @kenken,

Thanks for the question! So let’s briefly go over the stimulus first. We’re basically told that businesses can introduce variations into their operating system software to stop viruses from infecting an entire company’s system, and that these variations don’t mess with computer compatibility to the business. The argument concludes that businesses should do so.

Now, we’re asked for something that helps support this conclusion. And there seems to be a small jump being made in the argument—sure, companies can do this, and deal with a problem, but another issue is always that of cost when implementing solutions. If the cost of implementing a solution is more than the benefits, then it’s harder to argue that you should support the solution. For example, maybe there’s a hole in the roof of my shed that costs $1000 to fix (my hypothetical shed roof is made out of hypothetical gold). But I never use the shed. Sure, fixing the hole would fix the problem of water getting in the shed when it rains. But if I never use the shed, is it really worth it?

(B) tells us that the solution in this case is worth it. It tells us that if there were to be an invasion by a virus, and it caused damage, this would be much more expensive than just preventing the damage in the first place. Otherwise, it’s possible that the viruses are fairly benign, and it doesn’t matter too much if the company gets them or not. Maybe they’re just troll viruses that play Rick Roll once and then disappear. Then it might not be worth it to spend money on varying the system. But (B) tells us this isn’t the case, which strengthens the conclusion that yes, businesses should actually implement these variations.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.