Hi @aeynon, since this is an inference question, we do not need to evaluate if this argument is flawed. However, it is still nice to see that you're looking for flaws. We are told that standardization allows vandals to upload viruses, which destroys data. We are then offered a solution, which is to introduce minor variations, which the author tells us will "virtually eliminate" the problem. The author even addresses a potential concern, which is that this solution would create a loss of computer compatibility to the business. Therefore, businesses should use this solution.
There are two possible flaws with this argument. First, we are told that this solution "virtually solves" the problem, and therefore we should do it. Perhaps there is some other solution that completely solves it. The argument takes for granted that just because a solution mostly solves a problem we should automatically adopt it.
Second, the argument rebuts one potential downfall of the solution (compatibility) but there could be many others. Say, this solution is extremely expensive, or makes all computers run intolerably slow. Pointing out that a solution does not have one flaw is not the same as saying that a solution has no downsides.
