PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 4
Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no(100 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AWhen an anticounterfeiting(25 more words not shown)
- BFor any anticounterfeiting(25 more words not shown)
- CThe process of(17 more words not shown)
- DBefore photocopying technology(11 more words not shown)
- EMany criminals do(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An expert can spot a fake bill. The cashier accepting it might not. That explains why microprinting can help identify counterfeit money without stopping it from circulating widely. Tiny designs may fail to copy clearly, but a barista handling a busy line might accept a bill without inspecting those details.
Would the special ink solve that problem? Its color change would make photocopies easier for ordinary people to detect. Still, people have to notice the feature. If the cashier doesn't look, a detectable fake could get through again. And what if counterfeiters can obtain the ink themselves? Then their bills could display the same color change as genuine currency.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to support the recommendation, so we need to help the case for choosing special ink over microprinting. I'd be looking for a reason the ink offers a useful advantage despite those concerns and its higher printing cost. The recommendation is a comparison between two techniques, not a claim that counterfeiting is bad in general.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Microprinting has another cost: paying experts to inspect the money. The passage compares printing expenses and acknowledges that special ink costs more to print. But that isn't necessarily the whole bill to society. Adding a significant inspection cost to microprinting makes the special ink more attractive by reducing the apparent financial advantage of the alternative.
This isn't the direct improvement in the ink's effectiveness I first hoped for. It helps through the comparison instead. A doesn't prove that the techniques cost the same or that ink is cheaper overall; it supplies an overlooked expense on the microprinting side.
- B
This proposes publicity and secrecy rules for anticounterfeiting techniques generally. It doesn't show that special ink works better than microprinting or that its extra cost is justified. In fact, keeping the detection method secret could raise questions about how ordinary people would use the ink's visible feature. We aren't given a comparative advantage for the recommendation.
- C
Fewer production steps don't automatically mean lower total cost, since different steps can have very different prices. Even if this did suggest that microprinting is cheaper to produce, that would favor the alternative to the recommended ink. It wouldn't strengthen the recommendation.
- D
The historical role of master engravers doesn't tell us which technique best handles today's photocopied counterfeits. The passage already gives the present problem: people without that expertise can now make convincing copies. We need evidence bearing on the two proposed responses.
- E
This gives microprinting an advantage: many criminals lack the equipment needed to make copies that cashiers will accept. That is a reason microprinting may remain useful, not a reason to replace it with the special ink. It pushes in the wrong direction for a strengthener.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.