Electronic scanners

since the answer is already marked, all i can do is explain how i was thinking while reading the arg

Well my way of thinking...assumption is basically to weaken the arg

After reading the argument you understand that the main assumption shud be something related to the electronic m/c and the colour printer..and something that will relate their ability to challenge the steps taken by the banks...

the option that you chose in my opinion goes out of scope.

Can anyone can give a detailed explanation pls? Tx

crackgmat007 wrote:Pls explain. Tx

The planners may be assuming that the size of the dots will remain constant. There may be a relationship between s size of dots and the size of Void that is printed. If the dots become too small, then "Void" may not be seen when the check is scanned or printed and a counterfeit check may slip through the system. That is why the assumption is questionable.

Here you are not finding an assumption. An assumption is already made and you are asked to critique that assumption.

This is another reason why it may be important to read the questions first so that you know what you are plunging into during your analysis.

Here is my take on it.
I will go with option E.

General availability of S and P made c'ing easier.
To deter such c'ing, bank made a plan : issue checks containing small dots that can not be accurately duplicated by S "currently available."
When new checks are scanned, VOID will appear.

Without looking at answer choices, "currently available" words pulled my attention about the scanners.


(A) OUT - Out of scope - It is bringing territory in to the picture.

(B) OUT - There is no reason to talk about large or small amounts of money.

(C) OUT - This is a good assumptions but the same meaning has already been conveyed in the passage. No need to re-iterate it again.

(D) OUT - This is a good one but it is not helping to connect the known facts that we already know.

(E) This is saying that Scanners that are available today (which can not accurately duplicate the small dots) WILL NOT DECREASE in the near future. So until then the solution provided (small dots - VOID) is good enough to deter counterfeiting of check frauds.


I could be wrong, please feel free to correct me if I am. Thanks.

I will go with option E