Requiring that passwords conform to rules of length, complexity, and unpredictability increases the likelihood of someone gaining unauthorized access to a user’s account. Since most user accounts are automatically locked after a certain number of incorrect password guesses, it is usually impossible to gain access by guessing a password. However, because complex passwords can be hard to remember, users often write them down.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that making people use long, complex, unpredictable passwords actually increases the chances their accounts are hacked. Why? Because it’s hard to access an account by guessing a password anyway, and complex passwords are more difficult to remember, meaning people usually write them down.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes the risk of a written password being stolen is greater than the risk of a non-complex password being guessed. This means assuming people are more likely to write down a complex password, and that writing down a password increases the chances a person’s account is accessed without authorization.

A
People who use mnemonic devices to help remember their passwords are able to easily remember passwords that are long, complex, and unpredictable.
This doesn’t change the fact that people often write down complex passwords. It offers a method people can use to avoid writing their passwords down, but it doesn’t say that method is widespread.
B
User accounts that are automatically locked after a certain number of incorrect password guesses are usually unlocked after a reasonable time.
This doesn’t mean passwords are easy to guess. It doesn’t say a locked account is unlocked quickly enough to allow passwords to be at risk from repeated guessing.
C
When a password is written down, it increases the chances that someone will be able to use that password to gain unauthorized access to the user’s account.
This makes concrete the author’s assumption that a person’s account is more likely to be accessed without authorization if they write their password down. It confirms that the stated disadvantage of complex passwords—people tend to write them down—really is a disadvantage.
D
When users who forget their passwords are locked out of their own accounts, they must often go through a complicated process in order to have their accounts unlocked.
This is irrelevant. It implies users are motivated to remember their passwords, but it doesn’t say users are more likely to write down complex passwords than non-complex passwords.
E
Passwords that conform to rules of length, complexity, and unpredictability are no harder to guess than passwords that do not conform to such rules.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The author says it’s hard to access an account by guessing a password—complex or not. This isn’t an additional disadvantage of complex passwords.

6 comments

Anderson: Taking the long view, history shows that word usage and grammar rules are constantly changing and evolving—sometimes resulting in entirely new languages. Since they will change regardless of our efforts, we shouldn’t worry about violations of grammar rules.

Lipton: That’s like arguing that we shouldn’t worry about enforcing laws since, in the larger scheme of things, laws change and nations come and go. But of course it is good that laws are enforced.

Speaker 1 Summary
Anderson says that we shouldn’t worry about enforcing grammar rules. In support, Anderson says that these rules will change over time anyway. And how do we know this? Because history shows that grammar rules are always changing.

Speaker 2 Summary
Lipton’s argument leads to the unstated conclusion that we should enforce grammar rules. Lipton supports this by drawing an analogy between grammar rules and laws, since both change over time. However, Lipton says, it’s good to enforce laws—implying that it’s also good to enforce grammar rules.

Objective
We want to find a disagreement between Anderson and Lipton. The two disagree about whether we should enforce grammar rules.

A
grammar violations should be resisted
Anderson disagrees with this and Lipton agrees, so this is the disagreement. Anderson’s main conclusion is that we shouldn’t enforce grammar rules—put differently, we shouldn’t resist grammar violations. Lipton’s implied conclusion is the opposite, that we should resist.
B
a language can evolve into an entirely new language
Anderson agrees with this, and most likely, Lipton does as well. Lipton seems to take Anderson’s claims about language evolution for granted, and just disagrees about whether that’s a basis to ignore grammar rules.
C
users of a language can easily adapt to changes in that language
Neither speaker makes this claim. Anderson is the only one who talks directly about how languages change over time, but even so doesn’t mention how users of the language are impacted by those changes.
D
people only rarely violate grammar rules
Neither speaker expresses an opinion about this claim. Anderson and Lipton are discussing in the abstract whether grammar rules should be enforced. Neither one mentions how often people actually violate those rules.
E
languages evolve through an accumulation of changes in usage and rules
Anderson most likely agrees with this, and Lipton probably does as well. Anderson’s description of language evolution (which Lipton seems to accept) does mention that changes in usage and rules can cause new languages. That’s consistent with this statement.

2 comments

Student: My university recently enacted new penalties for drinking alcohol in on-campus student housing. But the university has attempted to curb on-campus drinking many times in the past, and these attempts have never been successful. Thus, these new penalties are bound to be just as ineffective.

Summarize Argument

The student concludes that the new penalties for on-campus drinking will be ineffective. He supports this by saying that past attempts to curb on-campus drinking were ineffective.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The student draws an analogy between the new efforts to stop on-campus drinking and the past efforts, claiming the new efforts will be just as ineffective. He assumes that the new and past efforts are relevantly similar, ignoring the possibility that there may be important differences that could make the new efforts more successful.

A
fails to specify what new penalties the university enacted for drinking alcohol in on-campus student housing

The student doesn’t need to explain what the new penalties are. Instead, he needs to explain why they’ll be ineffective. Even if he did specify them, his argument would still be flawed because he assumes the new penalties will fail simply because past efforts did.

B
overlooks the possibility that many students did not drink alcohol in on-campus student housing even before the new penalties were enacted

The student doesn’t overlook this possibility. Many students at the university may not drink at all; the penalties only target those students who do drink in on-campus housing.

C
presumes, without providing justification, that students’ preferred location for drinking alcohol is on-campus student housing

The student doesn’t assume that students prefer to drink on campus, just that some students do drink on campus. Whether students prefer to drink elsewhere is irrelevant; the penalties only target on-campus drinking.

D
overlooks the possibility that the new penalties are relevantly different from the university’s past attempts to curb on-campus drinking

The student assumes that the new penalties are relevantly similar to the university’s past attempts to curb on-campus drinking. If they’re relevantly different, he can’t conclude that the new ones will be ineffective simply because the old ones were.

E
fails to consider whether the new penalties will have any other positive consequences besides reducing drinking in on-campus student housing

It doesn't matter whether the new penalties have other positive consequences. The student only addresses whether these penalties will effectively reduce drinking in on-campus housing.


3 comments