Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardApplication of Principles

Principle: A technology firm should release a security patch that reduces a device's battery life only if the vulnerability being patched poses a severe risk to user privacy and there is no alternative method to secure the data. However, if the battery reduction affects the device's emergency call capabilities, the patch must not be released under any circumstances unless all affected users have provided explicit prior consent.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle stated above?

  1. Zephyr Corporation developed a patch that reduces battery life and affects emergency call capabilities. Although it resolves a severe privacy risk with no alternative method available, only 90 percent of affected users gave explicit consent. Therefore, Zephyr should not release the patch.Answer
  2. B
    OmniTech's new patch reduces battery life but leaves emergency call functions intact. Because the vulnerability it addresses poses a severe risk to user privacy and no alternative method exists to secure the data, OmniTech should release the patch.
  3. C
    Quantum Systems created a patch that reduces battery life and affects emergency call capabilities. Since the patch addresses a severe privacy risk with no alternative solution, and Quantum obtained explicit consent from the vast majority of affected users, they should release the patch.
  4. D
    Nexus Industries developed a patch that reduces battery life without affecting emergency capabilities. The patch addresses a severe risk to proprietary corporate trade secrets, and no alternative securing method exists. Therefore, Nexus should release the patch.
  5. E
    Pinnacle Data's latest security patch entirely avoids reducing a device's battery life. Because the vulnerability being patched poses a severe risk to user privacy and there are absolutely no alternative methods to secure the data, Pinnacle Data should release the patch.

Answer

The judgment concluding that Zephyr Corporation should not release its patch due to receiving only 90 percent explicit user consent.
This judgment perfectly applies the contrapositive of the emergency call exception. The principle dictates that if a patch affects emergency capabilities, it must not be released unless 100 percent of affected users consent. Because only a subset of users consented (90 percent), the necessary condition for releasing the patch is unmet, making the conclusion not to release it logically unassailable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the principle into its formal conditional rules.
Rule 1: Patch reduces battery -> (Release -> Severe Privacy Risk AND No Alternative). Rule 2: Patch affects emergency -> (Release -> ALL users explicitly consent).
Mapping the exact necessary and sufficient conditions prevents falling for illegal reversals or scope shifts.
2
Evaluate the judgment regarding Zephyr Corporation against Rule 2.
The scenario triggers Rule 2 (emergency calls affected). The necessary condition for release (100% consent) is failed because only 90% consented. By modus tollens, the conclusion 'must not release' is logically proven.
If a necessary condition is not met, the sufficient condition (releasing the patch) cannot occur.
3
Examine the remaining judgments for logical flaws.
OmniTech confuses necessary conditions for sufficient ones. Quantum fails the 'all' quantifier. Nexus shifts the required subject matter. Pinnacle applies a rule to a scenario outside the rule's scope.
Confirming the exact logical errors in the distractors verifies that only one judgment strictly conforms to the principle.

Key Concept

Applying complex conditional logic and evaluating the scope of normative principles.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Application of Principles

More questions from this topic