Hi @kyoon, thanks for your post. This is an Errors in Reasoning question. Let's examine the stimulus carefully.
The stimulus presents an argument, the conclusion of which is: "Clearly, if this result can be repeated in an operational setting, then there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and to no one else."
The premise in support of this argument is that there is a "new system that relies on recognizing the voices of authorized users" and that "in a small initial trial, the system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer's data."
But we know nothing about whether, during this trial, this new system ever incorrectly *denied* access to an authorized user. Therein lies the flaw! And that is what answer choice (D) points out.
Answer choice (A) is wrong because the flaw here is not a faulty comparison--it may well be that the two types of security systems have much in common, and can be properly compared. The language that should put you on guard in answer choice (A) is from the same *problems,* plural. We are only interested in one problem here--that unauthorized users can steal or guess typed passwords. On this point, the two systems--typed access vs. voice recognition access--are properly comparable.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
