Q4 - If regulation of computer networks

[jjaureguii]

I picked E and the answer was B?!!! Can someone please explain. Is it because E said "a television network" which was a specific detail that was not stated. Or is it because because the last sentence states "Thus, neither of these models can be appropriate for computer networks." I just think B takes it a step too far. Thank you!

[tanes25]

I just did the exact same thing. I didnt choose B because of the language "not be modeled on ANY single piece of past legislation" because I thought the only two past legislations was regulating a telephone system or EITHER regulating a public broadcasting service. ANY seemed like it excluded more than just those two so I didnt choose it. I didnt even pay attention to the "television network" languange in E. E was the only option remaining though. I'd love to have this one explained too. Maybe I missed the mark completely with my reason why I omitted B??

[christine.defenbaugh]

I'm so glad you both asked about this question! There is a ton of information in the stimulus of this inference question. Let's step back and lay it out simply before assessing the answer choices.

If computer network legislation modeled on past legislation, then either use 1) telephone legislation (resp. only for transmission) or 2) public broadcasting service legislation (resp. also for content).

Computer network serves both functions (private message or public information).

Neither legislative model is appropriate.

The first statement tells us that if we're going to model past legislation, we only have two options (telephone and public broadcast legislation). The last statement tells us that neither of those options is appropriate. That leaves us with exactly zero possible pieces of past legislation on which to model the planned legislation, which is essentially what (B) says.

Consider this analogy:
If you want to get the lunch special, you must order either the Reuben or the pastrami. But you are allergic to pastrami, and find Reuben sandwiches horrific. Therefore, neither are appropriate lunch choices for you.

What can we conclude? You ain't getting the lunch special.

You may both have overlooked that the first sentence limits the possible options to the two models.


The Unconcludable
(A) We have no support for the idea that legislation is required at all, much less that it's required for the purpose of privacy.
(C) The stimulus discusses modelling the legislation on that of telephones/television networks, not modelling the actual technology.
(D) Where did legislators come from? experience?
(E) Though there is a slight detail creep here from "public broadcasting service" to "television network", the far more damaging issue is the word "merely", which means "only". We know from statement 2 above that a computer network can serve the functions of both a telephone system and a television network. However, there's nothing to indicate that that is ALL it can do, which is what the "merely" here suggests.

Please let me know if this completely answers your questions!

[tanes25]

Ahhh, I get it now!!

[Mab6q]

Just to better understand what kinds of stimuli to expect for these types of questions, can we have an argument that is flawed in these Main Point questions? I ask because it seems that this one is: did the author really establish the negation of the necessary conclusion or did he just state it?

I understand why B is right but that was my general question.

[jm.kahn]

A detail in the stimulus really threw me off. It says "If the public broadcasting model is used, computer networks will additionally be responsible for the content." The use of term additional suggests that in thee public broadcasting model of legislation, networks will be responsible for content in addition to the responsibility of messages getting transmitted. This conflicts with the next sentence and then the intermediate conclusion in the stimulus of "neither models can be appropriate for computer networks."

The use of "additionally" seems incorrect in the question. Comments? I ended up getting it right but thought this was poor wording by lsat.