PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 5
Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no(100 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe longer the(30 more words not shown)
- BSophisticated counterfeiters could(13 more words not shown)
- CFurther advances in(13 more words not shown)
- DThe largest quantities(17 more words not shown)
- EIt is very(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if counterfeiters can get the special ink too? The ink is supposed to make real bills change color in ordinary light while photocopies fail to do so. I can see why that would be easier to notice than a tiny blurred design. But if someone making counterfeit money can use the same ink, the color change stops distinguishing that person's fake bills from real ones.
I'd also ask whether cashiers will actually check for the feature. A barista could accept a bill that looks roughly right without taking the time to examine either its tiny designs or its shifting color. Making a counterfeit easier to spot doesn't ensure it gets spotted.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to weaken the recommendation to use special ink instead of microprinting. Those concerns give us two places to look: perhaps the promised detection advantage doesn't work in practice, or perhaps counterfeiters can copy the supposedly protective feature itself. Either would make the recommended switch less convincing.
Working the answers
- A
Delayed detection making arrests harder tells us why circulation time can matter. It doesn't show that special ink would cause a longer delay than microprinting or otherwise favor keeping microprinting. If the ink helped people spot fakes sooner, A could actually supply another reason to use it. The choice doesn't undermine the proposed comparison.
- BCorrect
Sophisticated counterfeiters could print with the special ink but couldn't reproduce microprinted currency exactly. That hits the concern about copying the ink feature. A counterfeit produced this way could change color just like a genuine bill, while the failure to reproduce microprinting leaves a detectable difference under the existing technique. This is evidence against preferring ink. It doesn't have to prove that every counterfeiter can use it or that microprinting stops every fake bill.
- C
Better reproduction of fine detail threatens microprinting, whose protection depends on tiny designs not photocopying distinctly. This does not establish that the color-changing ink becomes easier to reproduce. The answer therefore gives a reason to worry about the technique the author wants to replace, which points toward the recommendation rather than against it.
- D
Ordinary criminals producing most counterfeit currency doesn't tell us which technique would stop them more effectively. We would need to know what those criminals can reproduce or what people accepting their bills detect. Brief involvement in counterfeiting alone doesn't establish an advantage for microprinting over ink.
- E
Difficulty measuring the social cost of widely circulating counterfeits doesn't show that the proposed ink is a worse response than microprinting. Even if the total harm is hard to estimate, we can still have reasons to prefer one detection technique. E supplies uncertainty about the size of the problem, not a defect in the recommended comparison.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.