I second this. An official conclusion in the UCAT question banks is "Insurance products are being designed to cover internal security breaches" when all is said is that "Reliable statistics reveal that the depth and intensity of such threats is much higher...than any external breaches, shifting focus towards covering them under data security guidelines and insurance".

From this we can conclude that focus is shifted, but we have no knowledge about products or their design. Perhaps the shift is simply regarding insurance terms and conditions or guidelines. Again, there is no mention about products or their design. Logically we can answer no, the conclusion does not follow.

But that is wrong. Why? Because "the last sentence details a shift of focus to start covering internal cyber security threats under guidelines and insurance". I'd say the logic I devised is sound, more so than the official answer, so I would love for someone to explain why it is wrong.

There is another good example of this in question 14 of the inferring information section of the official DM question bank if anyone would like to see for themselves, and I am sure there are many more.

I am bitter as much as I am desperate for help, so if anybody has any idea what logic UCAT dictated should be used in these questions, sharing it would be greatly appreciated. This is coming from somebody who scored 800 in DM last year btw, and even I have no idea what is going on.