LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 14

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 14

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:56

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S2 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
Analogy +An
A
16%
163
B
4%
159
C
65%
166
D
11%
160
E
3%
161
138
155
171
 +Harder 145.978 +SubsectionMedium

Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipulating the data and programs they contain is comparable to joyriding in stolen cars; both involve breaking into private property and treating it recklessly. Joyriding, however, is the more dangerous crime because it physically endangers people, whereas only intellectual property is harmed in the case of computer crimes.

Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend, and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Arjun concludes that computer crimes also cause physical harm to people. He supports this with an example: unauthorized use of hospital medical records could damage data systems that are critical to human lives.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Arjun concludes that computer crimes do cause physical harm based on the example that unauthorized use of hospital medical records could damage data systems that are critical to human lives. In other words, in order to draw his conclusion, he must assume that something that could happen actually will happen.

A
fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s argument

Yolanda makes a distinction between joyriding and computer crimes. Arjun counters this distinction by claiming that computer crimes also cause physical harm. He doesn’t ignore her distinction.

B
denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing evidence against it

Arjun denies Yolanda’s conclusion, but he does provide evidence: the example of unauthorized use of hospital medical records. The flaw lies in the relationship between this evidence and his conclusion.

C
relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown to be possible

Arjun’s premise states that unauthorized use of hospital medical records could damage certain data systems, while his conclusion states that computer crimes do cause physical harm. So his conclusion depends on the actuality of something that he’s only shown to be a possibility.

D
mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Arjun doesn’t do this; he just gives an example to support his conclusion.

E
uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his own conclusion

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of internal contradiction. Arjun’s evidence may not support his conclusion well, but it is consistent with his conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply