A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only open-source software, i.e., software that is non proprietary,...

GMAT Multi Source Reasoning : (MSR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Multi Source Reasoning

MSR - CR

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Software Company

Government Response

A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only open-source software, i.e., software that is non proprietary, based on code the user is allowed to redistribute and alter in any way. The bill appears to assume that open-source software is free. However, research has shown that the purchase cost of open source software is about 8% of the total cost associated with the use of the software, and that the cost of utilization-the sum of all non-purchase costs including installation, maintenance, administration, and downtime-is much higher than it is in the case of proprietary software.

The bill would require government to undergo an intensive program of software migration, at considerable immediate cost and risk. And because multiple versions of open-source software exist, the bill's measures are likely to increase compatibility problems between the information-technology systems of government agencies, as well as between government systems and private-sector systems.

Ques. 1/3

For each of the following statements, select Undermines if it would, if true, undermine the arguments made in one or the other of the two passages. Otherwise, select Does not undermine.

Undermines

Does not undermine

Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive for the government than would migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software.

Undermines

Does not undermine

The measures included in the bill will, if complied with, ensure compatibility among software systems used by all the various relevant stakeholders.

Undermines

Does not undermine

As a software package is used for a longer period of time, it becomes less expensive to migrate from that package to another.

Solution

OWNING THE DATASET

Understanding Source A: Software Company [Source Type - Text/Report]

Information from Dataset	Analysis
"A bill before Parliament would require all of government to use only open-source software, i.e., software that is non proprietary, based on code the user is allowed to redistribute and alter in any way."	There's proposed legislation that would mandate government use of open-source software exclusively Open-source means non-proprietary software where users can modify and share the code Inference: The bill appears comprehensive, covering "all of government"
"The bill appears to assume that open-source software is free."	The company believes lawmakers have a misconception about costs Inference: The bill's drafters might not fully understand open-source economics
"However, research has shown that the purchase cost of open source software is about 8% of the total cost associated with the use of the software"	Open-source isn't free - it has purchase costs Purchase price is only a small fraction (8%) of total expenses Inference: This contradicts the "free" assumption
"the cost of utilization—the sum of all non-purchase costs including installation, maintenance, administration, and downtime—is much higher than it is in the case of proprietary software"	Operational costs make up 92% of total cost for open-source These hidden costs (installation, maintenance, etc.) exceed those of proprietary software Inference: Total cost of ownership appears to be the author's main concern
"The bill would require government to undergo an intensive program of software migration, at considerable immediate cost and risk."	Switching software systems would be disruptive and expensive Inference: The author views the transition as risky Inference: Immediate costs are emphasized over potential long-term benefits
"multiple versions of open-source software exist, the bill's measures are likely to increase compatibility problems between the information-technology systems of government agencies, as well as between government systems and private-sector systems"	Open-source comes in many versions without standardization Inference: The author predicts inter-agency compatibility issues Inference: Also predicts problems with government-private sector interaction Inference: This suggests current systems may have better compatibility

Summary: A software company criticizes a parliamentary bill that would require government use of open-source software, arguing that the bill underestimates the true costs (92% being operational expenses) and would create compatibility problems between different systems.

Understanding Source B: Government Response [Source Type - Text/Response Letter]

Information from Dataset	Analysis
"We are aware that open-source software is not always offered free of charge."	Government acknowledges open-source has costs They understand pricing varies ("not always") Linkage to Source A: They are not operating under the misconception suggested in Source A Linkage to Source A: This directly responds to the software company's claim that the bill "assumes open-source software is free"
"And although savings are indeed mentioned in the bill, its primary aim is to protect citizens' free access to information."	Cost savings are secondary, not primary Main goal is ensuring citizen access to information Inference: The bill does reference savings, but they're not the main driver Linkage to Source A: This reframes the debate from economics (Source A's focus) to citizen rights
"Because the bill requires that encoding of data not be tied to a single software provider, it is able to guarantee this free access."	The bill prevents vendor lock-in through data encoding standards "Free access" means freedom from proprietary constraints, not cost-free Inference: Vendor lock-in prevention is a key feature
"The bill would indeed require government to begin an intensive process of software migration that would not otherwise be undertaken."	Government admits migration will be intensive Acknowledges this wouldn't happen without mandate Linkage to Source A: Agrees with the software company that migration will be "intensive"
"However, the high cost of software migration in general is an argument in favor of the bill."	Counterintuitive argument: expensive migration justifies the bill Inference: Suggests long-term thinking about future migrations Linkage to Source A: Takes the same fact (high migration costs) but uses it to support opposite conclusion
"The longer a particular information technology system is used, the more expensive migration to a different system becomes."	Migration costs increase the longer you wait Inference: Implies acting now prevents higher future costs Inference: Suggests current proprietary systems may already be creating lock-in Linkage to Source A: Suggests the software company's position perpetuates the very problem the bill addresses
"Because open-source software allows the encoding of data in standard and adaptable formats, software migration becomes much easier and less expensive once open-source software is installed."	Open-source uses standardized formats Future migrations will be cheaper and easier Inference: One-time pain for long-term flexibility Linkage to Source A: Directly contradicts the claim about "compatibility problems" - standardization actually improves compatibility
"migration from proprietary to open-source software would entail no greater cost than would migration between two different proprietary software systems."	Current migration isn't more expensive than any major software change Inference: The cost argument against the bill may be overstated Inference: Positions this as a normal IT transition

Summary: The government responds to the software company's economic concerns by clarifying that the bill's primary goal is citizen information access rather than cost savings, and argues that while migration costs are high now, they prevent vendor lock-in and will make future transitions cheaper and easier.

Overall Summary

The debate centers on a fundamental disagreement about timing and priorities rather than facts
Both the software company and government agree that migration to open-source will be intensive and costly upfront, but they interpret these facts differently
The software company focuses on immediate costs and compatibility concerns, viewing the 92% operational costs as prohibitive
The government reframes the discussion around citizen access to information and long-term flexibility, arguing that high migration costs now actually justify the bill since delaying will only make future transitions more expensive
The key insight is that "free" in the bill refers to freedom from vendor constraints, not zero cost
Both parties acknowledge open-source isn't free, but disagree on whether addressing vendor lock-in now is worth the immediate expense

Question Analysis

The question requires determining whether each of three statements undermines (contradicts) arguments made in either Source A or Source B regarding software migration costs and compatibility. Key requirements include:

Evaluate statements against both Source A and Source B
Identify direct contradictions that weaken source arguments
Answer must indicate if statement undermines at least one source's argument
Focus only on logical contradiction related to migration cost and compatibility

The answer type needed is a logical evaluation indicating which source's argument is undermined.

Connecting to Our Analysis

The analysis summarizes key positions: Source A argues migration to open-source is costly and will increase compatibility issues, Source B argues cost parity in migration and increasing migration cost over time. The analysis fully supports logical evaluation of given statements against source claims, allowing us to answer from the analysis alone.

Extracting Relevant Findings

Each statement is evaluated against the documented source arguments to identify contradictions. Source arguments serve as the baseline for comparison, with the hypothesis that each statement either contradicts or aligns with the source arguments.

Individual Statement/Option Evaluations

Statement 1 Evaluation

Statement claim: Migrating from proprietary to open-source is significantly more expensive than migrating between proprietary software
Source B position: Migration cost from proprietary to open-source is no greater than proprietary-to-proprietary migration
Analysis: Statement 1 directly contradicts Source B's equal cost migration argument
Conclusion: UNDERMINES Source B

Statement 2 Evaluation

Statement claim: The bill's measures will ensure compatibility among software systems
Source A position: The bill's measures will likely increase compatibility problems
Analysis: Statement 2 directly contradicts Source A's compatibility problem argument
Conclusion: UNDERMINES Source A

Statement 3 Evaluation

Statement claim: As a software package is used longer, migrating away becomes less expensive
Source B position: Longer use increases migration cost
Analysis: Statement 3 directly contradicts Source B's increasing migration cost over time argument
Conclusion: UNDERMINES Source B

Systematic Checking

Verification that the evaluations consistently identify contradictions and undermining effects:

Statement 1 undermines Source B's equal cost migration argument
Statement 2 undermines Source A's compatibility problem argument
Statement 3 undermines Source B's increasing migration cost over time argument
All three statements undermine at least one source's argument

Final Answer

Statement 1: Undermines
Statement 2: Undermines
Statement 3: Undermines

Answer Choices Explained

Undermines

Does not undermine

Migration from proprietary software to open-source software would be significantly more expensive for the government than would migration from proprietary software to other proprietary software.

Undermines

Does not undermine

The measures included in the bill will, if complied with, ensure compatibility among software systems used by all the various relevant stakeholders.

Undermines

Does not undermine

As a software package is used for a longer period of time, it becomes less expensive to migrate from that package to another.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...