Self-study
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. ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███████
██████ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████
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.
14.
The reasoning in Arjun's response ██ ██████ ███████ ██
a
fails to maintain █ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████
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 ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██
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 █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████
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 █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████
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 █ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████
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.