Self-paced
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. ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███████
██████ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████
Speaker 1 Summary
Yolanda concludes that joyriding is more dangerous than accessing computers without authorization and manipulating the computer’s data or programs. This is because joyriding physically endangers people, whereas the computer crime only harms property.
Speaker 2 Summary
Arjun concludes that joyriding is not more dangerous than the computer crime. This is because unauthorized use of medical records systems might can causes physical harm to people by potentially damaging hospital data systems.
14.
The reasoning in Arjun's response ██ ██████ ███████ ██
a
fails to maintain █ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████
Arjun does not drop or blur any distinction from Yolanda's argument. Yolanda separates physical harm from harm to intellectual property, and Arjun keeps that separation in place. His argues that computer crime belongs on the physical-harm side too, using the example of hospital data systems. He is disputing where computer crime falls, not collapsing the line between the two kinds of harm.
b
denies Yolanda's conclusion ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██
Arjun does provide evidence against Yolanda's position. He offers the example of unauthorized use of a hospital's medical records systems, which is meant to show that computer crime can reach human lives. You might find his evidence weak, but that doesn't mean he doesn't provide any evidence.
c
relies on the █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████
This pinpoints Arjun's flaw. His evidence is only that unauthorized use of medical records systems could damage data that lives depend on, which establishes a possibility. His conclusion, though, is that computer crimes also cause physical harm to people, stated as something that actually happens. Showing that physical harm is possible does not show that it ever actually occurs, so Arjun treats a mere possibility as if it were an established fact.
d
mistakes something that █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████
Arjun never mixes up a necessary condition with a sufficient one. He does not name a condition his conclusion depends on and then treat it as enough by itself, nor does he do the reverse. His mistake is about the strength of his evidence.
e
uses as evidence █ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████
Arjun's evidence fits his conclusion rather than clashing with it. Pointing out that computer crime could damage hospital data on which lives depend doesn't contradict his claim that computer crime can physically harm people. For this answer to apply, his evidence would have to work against his own conclusion, but it doesn't do that.