PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 14
Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and(80 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Arjun's response(4 more words not shown)
- Afails to maintain(6 more words not shown)
- Bdenies Yolanda's conclusion(5 more words not shown)
- Crelies on the(12 more words not shown)
- Dmistakes something that(12 more words not shown)
- Euses as evidence(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Arjun's hospital example initially sounds persuasive. A damaged medical-record system could interfere with treatment and hurt people. That gives us a reason to question Yolanda's claim that computer crimes affect only intellectual property.
But the question specifically asks for a flaw in Arjun's response. So slow down: what has he actually established?
He says unauthorized use could damage systems on which lives depend. Then he concludes that computer crimes cause physical harm. A possible route to injury isn't yet evidence that the injury has occurred. The example gives us a scenario; the conclusion treats the harmful result as an actual phenomenon.
What we’re looking for
We might also want more information about how often these injuries occur before comparing the two crimes' danger. But the more immediate gap is possibility versus actuality. That's the distinction I'd look for in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Arjun doesn't confuse damage to data with damage to people. He describes how the first could lead to the second. That reasoning recognizes two different kinds of harm and proposes a connection between them. Questioning Yolanda's claim that only one kind is involved isn't a failure to understand her distinction.
- B
He does offer evidence against Yolanda's position: the hospital scenario is meant to show a physical risk she overlooks. We can question whether that support establishes his conclusion, but it isn't the same as providing no support. An incomplete argument still has an argument to examine.
- CCorrect
“Could damage” establishes a possibility. “Computer crimes also cause physical harm” relies on the result actually occurring. Arjun hasn't described a real incident in which compromised records injured someone or otherwise established that the proposed chain has happened.
A hypothetical can be useful for showing how something might happen. The mistake is using that hypothetical as though it has already established the actual occurrence claimed in the conclusion. That's why liking his example at first doesn't settle whether the inference is sound.
- D
Arjun doesn't say damaging hospital records is necessary for computer crimes to cause physical harm. He offers it as an example of how harm could occur, not as the only possible route. There is no move from one way to reach the outcome to a requirement for reaching it. The issue is whether his possible example establishes an actual outcome.
- E
The evidence fits the conclusion rather than conflicting with it. If a computer crime did damage a vital hospital system and injure someone, that would support the claim that computer crimes cause physical harm. The problem is that Arjun hasn't shown this possible event actually occurs, not that the event would contradict his conclusion.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.