Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Weakening Questions

During a heated debate between the developers of a computer virus protection program, the subjects of design and the interactive characteristics of the user interface arose. The head programmer contradicted a statement presented by the GUI designer completely by stating that since the results of a consumer poll conducted by the company earlier that month had revealed that most private computer users preferred to not be annoyed by pop-up windows or other system alerts while using programs, the new interface should be created in a way that makes it almost invisible, as to avoid disturbing the users. Based on the programmer's reasoning, it is quite clear that the GUI designer's viewpoint is flawed.

Which of the following, if true, calls the argument's conclusion into question?

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion. If people don't really need to be notified about blocked viruses then the programmer's opinion is strengthened; however, our task is to weaken it.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion by presenting another reason why the alerts should not be included in the program - they use up memory and disrupt workflow. Therefore, this answer choice takes sides with the programmer, instead of with the GUI designer.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. Where viruses come from is simply general information that cannot help us favor the GUI designer's viewpoint since it has nothing to do with whether the virus protection program should be invisible.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

While this answer choice supports using alerts to protect the computer on time, it is not the best answer choice. The debate in the argument is whether the program should be made quiet or invisible to avoid annoying the users; i.e., it is not a practical debate on the effectiveness of protection.

There is an answer choice which correctly supports the GUI designer's position based on the effect alerts have on the users' satisfaction of the program. Look for it!

Splendid!

[[snippet]]

This answer choice supports the GUI's viewpoint, weakening that of the programmer. We are told that users need to feel that something is working and protecting their computer. Therefore, a program that is invisible will not be appropriate since it might leave them feeling that nothing is happening and that they are exposed to viruses, despite the program.

The fact that thousands of new computer viruses are released onto the internet every day is well-known by most users meaning that there would not be any harm in creating a virus protection program that refrained from notifying the user about every prevented infection.

Since most users use an average of three programs simultaneously for 70% of the time they spend working on a computer, alerts and other system interruptions can disrupt workflow and occupy precious memory resources needed by the computer to function optimally. 

There is more than a sufficient amount of evidence to prove that the idea that computer viruses are created by companies that sell computer virus protection programs is completely fictitious.

Because of a rise in the public's awareness of the threat of computer viruses and the damage that they can inflict, most users now need to feel that there is some form of active mechanism constantly at work to ensure their computers' protection.

The method of manually enabling a protection program once a day to scan for any infections while preventing the agitation caused by alert messages from a virus protection program is ineffective since some viruses can do considerable damage in the time-frame between scans.