PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 7
Gerald: Unless a consumer secures his or her(76 more words not shown)
Gerald's and Kendra's positions indicate(15 more words not shown)
- Acan be considered(4 more words not shown)
- Bis like(1 more words not shown)
- Cshould be prohibited(2 more words not shown)
- Drequires a considerable(3 more words not shown)
- Ecould be done(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Connecting to someone's Wi-Fi seems different from hearing a radio as you pass. You might actively choose to connect, while music can reach your ears without your doing anything. That's the first distinction I'd question in Gerald's analogy.
Kendra raises a different distinction. She says using the wireless service requires stopping for a considerable time, and suggests that this could count as loitering or harassment. Her objection concerns the stop, not whether the connection is deliberate.
What we’re looking for
For their disagreement, my first thought is that Kendra rejects Gerald's comparison with listening to music. Gerald uses the comparison to defend his view; she points to a relevant difference. Let's find something both speakers actually take a position on. We mustn't replace Kendra's objection with the separate one I initially raised.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Gerald explicitly says this use cannot be considered illegal under current law. Kendra responds that it could count as loitering or harassment. In the context of her reply, those are proposed grounds for treating the conduct as illegal. So Gerald rules that possibility out, while Kendra allows it. We don't need to decide which speaker correctly describes the law; we need to identify the opposing positions their exchange expresses.
- B
Gerald says the conduct isn't like trespassing, but Kendra doesn't claim that it is. She names loitering and harassment instead. Rejecting his overall conclusion about legality doesn't commit her to the particular trespassing comparison he discusses.
- C
Whether conduct is already illegal is different from whether it should be prohibited. Gerald discusses current laws, and Kendra offers possible classifications under them. Neither gives us the required opposing policy recommendations about what the law ought to be.
- D
Kendra says access requires a considerable stop. Gerald doesn't expressly deny that. His analogy may invite us to picture someone simply walking past, but he never takes a clear position on how much time access requires. We shouldn't turn his silence about timing into a denial of Kendra's claim.
- E
This resembles my initial active-versus-passive objection. But Kendra's actual objection is about time, not intent. She doesn't say an unintended connection is impossible, and Gerald doesn't clearly say it is possible. An objection we could make isn't automatically the disagreement these two speakers have.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.