LSAT Explanation PT 20, S1, Q14: Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without
LSAT Question Stem
The reasoning in Arjun's response is flawed because he
Logical Reasoning Question Type
This is a Flaw question.
Correct Answer
The correct answer to this question is C.
LSAT Question Complete Explanation
First, let's summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. Yolanda argues that unauthorized computer access and manipulation is similar to joyriding in stolen cars because both involve breaking into private property and treating it recklessly. She then claims that joyriding is more dangerous because it physically endangers people, while computer crimes only harm intellectual property. Arjun disagrees, providing a counterexample of unauthorized use of hospital medical records systems, which could potentially damage data systems on which human lives depend, thus causing physical harm to people. The structure of the argument consists of Yolanda's premise (comparison of computer crimes and joyriding) and conclusion (joyriding is more dangerous), followed by Arjun's counterexample.
An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be, "Do computer crimes actually cause physical harm to people in real-life situations?"
The question type for this problem is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in Arjun's reasoning.
Answer Choices:
a) Arjun does not fail to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda's argument. Instead, he is trying to challenge the distinction Yolanda made between the physical harm caused by joyriding and the intellectual harm caused by computer crimes.
b) Arjun does not deny Yolanda's conclusion without providing evidence against it. He provides a counterexample involving unauthorized use of hospital medical records systems, which could potentially cause physical harm to people.
c) This is the correct answer choice. Arjun's reasoning is flawed because he relies on the possibility of computer crimes causing physical harm without showing that they actually do so in real-life situations. He only presents a hypothetical scenario, not evidence of actual harm caused by computer crimes.
d) Arjun does not mistake something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion. His counterexample is meant to challenge Yolanda's conclusion, not establish a necessary condition for his own conclusion.
e) Arjun does not use evidence that is inconsistent with his own conclusion. His counterexample of unauthorized use of hospital medical records systems is meant to support his conclusion that computer crimes can cause physical harm to people.
In conclusion, the flaw in Arjun's reasoning is that he relies on the potential harm caused by computer crimes without providing evidence that they actually cause physical harm in real-life situations (Answer Choice C).