PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 18
Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information in(62 more words not shown)
The principles stated by the(10 more words not shown)
- ARey gave his(42 more words not shown)
- BPolice department investigators(50 more words not shown)
- CA police officer(50 more words not shown)
- DCustoms officials examined(46 more words not shown)
- EAgainst the company(59 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A business computer isn't automatically open to anyone who wants to look through it.
The first rule gives a requirement: unauthorized access can be justified only if the computer is typically used for a business. That rules out justification under these principles for a computer that fails the requirement. It doesn't say that business use alone justifies access.
The second rule adds enough to justify it. We have a business computer, and there are reasonable grounds to believe it contains data usable as evidence in a legal proceeding against its owner. With both pieces, the lawyer says access is justified.
What we’re looking for
Notice what isn't required: actually finding useful evidence. A reasonable belief can turn out to be mistaken. In applying these principles, check what the person had grounds to believe before the search, as well as what the computer was used for. Don't replace those conditions with the eventual result.
Working the answers
- A
Rey's permission isn't the computer owner's permission, and the lawyer gives no rule saying a coworker's approval is enough. Looking up a friend's phone number also doesn't supply reasonable grounds to expect evidence for a proceeding against the owner. This may sound like an ordinary favor, but the stated principles don't establish that it is justified.
- BCorrect
The investigators access the business's accounting files on its central computer, and they have reasonable grounds to believe those files contain evidence relevant to the case against the firm. Those are the two pieces we need. Finding nothing afterward doesn't erase the reasonable basis they had beforehand. The rule supports justification, not a guarantee of a successful search.
- C
No usable evidence was found, but that doesn't tell us whether the officer had reasonable grounds to expect it. A justified search can be unsuccessful, as B illustrates. We know the computer meets the business-use requirement; we lack the information needed to reach C's definite verdict that the search was unjustified.
- D
Reasonable grounds for believing what? Here the belief concerns whether the laptop was used in the business. The rule requires reasonable grounds for expecting usable evidence against the owner. Suspecting the owner of smuggling and believing the laptop is a business computer doesn't by itself establish that separate belief about its contents.
- E
Personal letters aren't automatically irrelevant to a legal proceeding. They could contain evidence concerning the owner. The rule concerns the computer's typical business use and reasonable grounds to expect usable evidence; it doesn't categorically exclude files labeled personal. E gives no basis for concluding that the nature of these letters makes the access unjustified.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.