Which of the following would be a valid reason to use a Windows workgroup?

While workgroups require no dedicated server, the per-machine administration overhead for managing individual accounts and permissions on every computer often results in a higher total cost of ownership than a domain at scale, making 'lower initial cost' a misleading justification.

Workgroups do not support single sign-on - users must authenticate separately to each computer or shared resource because there is no centralized directory service or Kerberos ticket-granting mechanism.

Centralized control is a defining feature of Windows Active Directory domains, not workgroups - each computer in a workgroup independently manages its own local accounts and group policies.

In a Windows workgroup, each computer maintains its own local security accounts database, and administrators can manually create matching local accounts and assign identical permissions on each machine to achieve a consistent security posture. This makes workgroups valid for small environments where locally enforced, uniform rights are sufficient and a domain controller is not warranted. Unlike a domain, the permissions are enforced independently per machine, which provides direct local control without additional infrastructure.