Video Explanation

Text Explanation

The evidence says: all the ETS hackers were FANTOD programmers.  What the colleges seem to be assuming is the converse: all FANTOD programmers are hackers.  Of course, there is no direct evidence for this converse.  Presumably there are some students who learn FANTOD in good faith and who are not hackers, but because of the assumption the colleges are making, these students are faced with extra challenges, such as having their justly achieved SAT scores disregarded and being forced to take additional admission tests. 

(C) is the credited answer.  Since there is no evidence for the converse statement, we have reason to believe there are FANTOD programmers who are entirely innocent of any hacking, yet those very students will have their perfectly valid SAT scores dismissed and will have to take a new test to achieve admission: this certainly would not be fun, would not be fair, and could place them at a disadvantage with respect to all the non-programming students who could just take the ordinary SATs and be done with all testing. 

(A) assumes too much based on the information provided in the prompt. Specifically, we only know about a specific group of those with FANTOD knowledge: those who used it to hack into ETS. Therefore, we cannot make any airtight conclusions about "most people". It is very possible that most people who know FANTOD use it for purposes other than hacking.  

(B) might be true, but it's much too broad.  This is about the much larger issue of what is the best way for colleges to determine who should be admitted.  This entire argument is focused quite specifically on the FANTOD programmers and the issues associated with them. 

We have absolutely no evidence for (D).  All we know is that, whatever scores those hackers achieved on the real SAT, they falsified the records to make them higher.  We don't know if those scores were already high, and we certainly can draw no conclusion about all the students who know how to program in FANTOD who are not hackers. In fact, one might suspect the opposite, that folks bright enough to figure out this sophisticated programming language might be more intelligent and more successful on average, but even that we strictly can't assume.  Therefore, we can't draw a clear conclusion about this. 

(E) is a tricky one.  We are told that some colleges took a certain set of special measures. We are given no information on what the other colleges did. Did they take another set of special measures? Did they not address the issue at all?  We don't know. Therefore, we can't draw a clear conclusion along these lines.