PT105.S2.Q14 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 105 - Section 2 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action