#18 - Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information in

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—PR, SN. The correct answer choice is (B)

This Principle question contains conditional reasoning. While this question can seem unusually complicated at first, once we diagram the stimulus the problem becomes much more approachable. Let’s break the stimulus down bit by bit. The first sentence states that one is justified in accessing computer files without permission only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business. “Only if” is a necessary indicator word, so we can diagram the first sentence as follows:

• Sufficient Necessary
  
  Justified Computer typically used in operation of a business

The next sentence is tricky. It states that if in addition there is also reason to think the computer contains information that would likely be useable against the owner in legal proceedings, then it is justified to access it without permission. The “in addition” must refer back to the prior sentence, to mean in addition to being a computer typically used in the operation of a business. We can diagram this portion as follows:

• Sufficient Necessary
  Computer likely contains information
  usable against owner in court
  and Justified
  Computer typically used in
  operation of a business

It is these two conditional chains that we can use to approach the answer choices.
Answer choice (A): Although Rey gave Sunok permission to access the computer, the owner of the computer did not give Sunok permission. Therefore, Sunok accessed the computer without permission. The computer was typically used in the operation of a business, so the second half of our conditional chain is satisfied. However, this answer choice is incorrect because the computer is not likely to contain information against the owner in court. Therefore, we cannot conclude that it her actions were justified.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. In this answer choice, the police accessed the computer without permission, and the computer was typically used in the operation of a business. Additionally, the answer choice states that it was reasonable for the police to believe that the computer contained information usable against the owners in court. The answer choice then concludes that the access of the computer was justified. This is correct based on the principle. Once we know that it was reasonable to believe that the computer was likely to contain information usable against the owners, we know that the sufficient condition is true. Therefore, the necessary condition, that the access was justified, also must be true.

Answer choice (C): In this answer choice, the police officer accessed the files without the owner’s permission. The answer choice states that the computer produced no useable information, but it does not say whether or not it was reasonable for the police officer to think that it would produce such information. Therefore, since we do not know about the sufficient condition, we cannot determine if the actions were justifiable or not.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice mixes two different portions of the conditional statement. The action is justified if it is reasonable to think there is information on the computer that is useable against the owner, not that it is reasonable to think that the computer was used in business.

Answer choice (E): The police office accessed a computer typically used in the operation of a business. The police officer accessed personal letters of the owner on the computer, but it does not say if it was reasonable for the police officer to think the letters were likely to provide information usable against the owner in court. Therefore, like in answer choice (C), we do not know if the actions of the police officer were justified or not.

[Sherry001]

Hello ,
For this question I had trouble diagraming , even though I was able to arrive at the correct answer . So here is my issue . When I don't diagram, I lose track of the right things being on the right side of the arrows . But when I do diagram, I run into these kinds of diagrams where they're are multiple necessaries and I get stuck and end up spending over 3 mins on these questions. How do I diagram these ? Or how should I approach these..?


not Justified accessing info--> authorization--> operation of business

Useable in legal proceedings --> no authorization --> justified access



Thank you very much
Sherry

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sherry,

Great question. It looks to me like you have too many arrows here. I'd do it like this:

1. justified in accessing without permission typically used in operation of business
2. reasonable grounds for believing it has usable evidence AND typically used in operation of business justified in accessing without permission

I think what tripped you up here was the very long clauses used in each sentence. They were so long that it almost seems like there are multiple conditional statements, but it is actually a bit more straight-forward - the trick is cutting through the wordiness in the stimulus to distill what should be diagrammed.

Does that help?

[Sherry001]

Yes,but my issue is with the word "without ". So according to your premise #1 shouldn't it be NOT justified.

I'm so sorry . I obviously know your right and I'm 100 percent wrong. Haha . I just wanted to make sense to me, because I read my bibles 2x and Its really stuck to me to pause when I see without and negate the sufficient

[Laura Carrier]

Hi Sherry,

I think the reason you find it challenging to diagram a question like this one is because the relationships among the conditions are made deliberately difficult to interpret, as Emily said, by the convoluted language.

The use of the word “without” in the first sentence is a perfect example of making those relationships deliberately obscure. You are quite right to always notice that “without” can be a necessary condition indicator that requires use of the Unless Equation for diagramming—in which case it would have been absolutely correct to negate the sufficient condition and turn “justified” into “not justified.”

The problem is, however, that “without” is not necessarily always a necessary condition indicator, and here, it is simply serving as part of the description of the sufficient condition, and the only actual necessary condition indicator is “only if.”

In circumstances such as these, where two possible indicators are present, in order to diagram the correct conditional relationship it is sometimes necessary to think about the substance of the statement before formulaically applying the procedure for diagramming a conditional statement, in order to be sure that you are getting your diagram right.

Think about the substantive logic of the first sentence here:

One is justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer’s owner only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business.

As it is used here, “without” is actually narrowing down the circumstances in which information in computer files is accessed from the entire group of every accessing to the subgroup of accessing when the computer’s owner has not authorized it.

In other words, the stimulus is not telling us whether any accessing of this information is justified, but is only setting conditions on occasions of accessing this information when the computer’s owner has not authorized it. So “without” is simply serving as a qualifier that carves out the definition of the smaller group that is the subject of the sufficient condition—i.e., occasions of accessing information when the owner has not authorized it. As a result, “without” is not an indicator that a necessary condition is impliedly absent, and thus doesn’t require applying the Unless Equation and negating the sufficient condition that it is actually a part of.

Since the actual necessary condition in this sentence is “only if,” there is no need to negate the sufficient condition, which simply remains “justified in accessing information without the owner’s authorization.”

Sometimes there are multiple necessary conditions, and I would advise you to diagram those whenever a diagram is necessary in order to keep track of what the relationships are, since such questions are designed to be confusing and you can be sure that the incorrect answer choices will take advantage of that confusion. But in a case such as this, you can significantly simplify the diagram, as Emily did, by using your common sense understanding of the stimulus to differentiate between the roles played by “without” and “only if.”

I don’t think this kind of anomalous use of “without” as simply a qualifier within an overarching conditional statement is discussed in the Bible, so it is no wonder that it confused you here! So it was great practice to encounter it and struggle through it, so that you’ll be prepared if you encounter a similar ambiguity in the future.

I hope this helps to clarify things!
Laura

[Sherry001]

This was perfect ! Thank you both very much

Sherry

[15veries]

Hi

So to show it is not completely bi-conditional, it used "in addition" right?
Why/How did you know "in addition" is in addition to "the typically....business" part?

[Boudreaux]

I'm reviewing my PT and I got this one correct, but after reading the explanations I may have just gotten lucky.

I immediately went through and eliminated answers C and E because they stated "was not justified."

I see this is not a parallel question, but I'm trying to come up with the CP statement that would fit the sentence structure of the answer choices. What do you think?

[Robert Carroll]

Boudreaux,

Because the first sentence is a conditional of the form:

Justified Computer typically used in operation of a business

The contrapositive would be:

Computer typically used in operation of a business Justified

Or, in relatively plain English, "If a computer is not typically used in the operation of a business, then no one is justified in accessing information in that computer's files without authorization from the computer's owner."

As you can see, this does allow me to judge that, in certain circumstances, accessing a computer is not justified. So I can't reject an answer choice out of hand because it claims that certain access was unjustified. The common problem with answer choices (C) and (E) is that they DO involve situations where the computer was used in the operation of a business, so they don't contain the sufficient condition of the contrapositive.

Generalizing, if you have a principle saying "A requires B", you can infer an application like "A is true in this situation, so B is also true." But you can also infer an application like "B is not true in this situation. So A is also not true." Thus, an answer choice containing the phrase "A is not true" can't be rejected immediately, because it might be entailed by the contrapositive. I have to explore the answer fully to see if it might involve good reasoning (like a contrapositive) or bad reasoning (like a Mistaken Negation, or something else wrong with it).

Robert Carroll

[Moukieroo]

Just for clarification- is this really a MUST BE TRUE question stem? Because it says most strongly supports, my understanding is that there is a little more wiggle room in a question like this.
Must be true questions seem to have different wording from my experience such as:

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?
Which one of the following statements follows logically from the statements above?

Obviously it is close and they generally take the same approach, but I feel that this question stem makes us have a little imagination

---let me know if you think there is something to the distinction or if I am off

Thanks!