Computer operating system software has become increasingly standardized. But when a large business with multiple, linked computer systems uses identical operating system software on all of its computers, a computer vandal who gains access to one computer automatically has access to the data on all the computers. Using a program known as of computer compatibility to the business. Therefore, it is advisable for businesses to implement such variations.
What this question is testing
Conclusion
The author wants businesses to tweak their operating systems so each computer is slightly different. Why? So that if a hacker breaks into one machine, they can't automatically reach all the others.
Evidence
The author says variations would virtually eliminate the simultaneous-access risk and can be done without breaking compatibility.
Evaluate
The conclusion is that implementing variations is advisable — meaning, worth doing. To call something worth doing, the benefits have to be worth more than the costs. The author has named one benefit (less risk) and ruled out one cost (lost compatibility). But what about the basic cost-benefit picture: is the damage you're preventing big enough to justify the prevention work?
If preventing the damage is far cheaper than fixing it later, the case for variations gets stronger.
Goal
Find an answer that ties the prevention cost to the damage cost in a way that makes prevention worthwhile.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.