I think "confiscate" implies taking property against the owner's will. It refers to an authorized seizure where an authority takes possession of an item, typically without the owner's consent or compensation, often as a penalty or to serve a legal purpose. Thus I hesitated and chose D (but I think my main mistake was not noticing the NC and SC, and contraposing properly to reach B. Anywho, that's unrelated to why I thought D satisfied the domain.)
@ArthurMorgan I also got stuck here and chained it similar to this. I think the "in addition" is fluff here - we are introducing a new relationship that is not connected to the old one. This might best be illustrated by asking whether there's any value in the argument TOB and RGBEL --> Comp. TOB. If the sufficient conditions here are met, our conclusion is a premise. I believe that this might even be an incorrect way of diagramming this question.
Basically, the second if-then statement is a standalone relationship when compared to the first statement. It provides another rule within the domain of no authorisation to reach the conclusion "justified." The "in addition" wording does not create a logical relationship with the first if-then statement, but is rather fluff.
@Hashibiro Hello, I think what is meant by "reachable" and "unreachable" is the pure logical arguments provided by the stimulus. Here, we have two rules, with "J" in the sufficient condition for one, and necessary in the other. If we contra pose the first rule, we can get two rules that look like this:
~comp TOB --> ~J (logically equivilant to the rule in the video)
comp TOB and TGBEL --> J
(I'm using "~" for negation here)
Here, you can see that our REACHABLE conclusions are Justified and Not Justified. Furthermore, we only have THESE TWO WAYS of reaching either conclusion. If the answer question says "not justified," we MUST meet the sufficient conditions in the first rule to trigger it.
TLDR: Reachable/Unreachable refers to the conclusions which the arguments we have, when translated into Lawgic, support.
I'm confused by "justified" can't be the sufficient condition here? Why can't we just leave it as is? Is it because the second rule has justified in the necessary condition? Or are we just using common sense here that it seems like justified should be the necessary condition? #help #feedback
In the first rule, why would justified be the sufficient condition? The word "if" is a sufficient condition indicator. I know that you cannot go off of the indicator words only, but it made sense to do so in this problem. I drew out that the computer used in a business was the sufficient condition and that it was justified without the authorization as the necessary. So it was like this: used in business-> justified w/o authorization.
+1 min and 58 sec. The lesson before this really helped how I viewed this question. Very cool to see the lessons paying off! When I first started this journey I would not have gotten this question right at all! Very motivating :)
@OmarAlmi short-handing the diagram or doing it mentally can help! I got it under the time by about half a minute by realizing the right answer could reach the justification (J) conclusion if it fulfilled "computer used in business" (CiB) & "reasonable grounds for evidence in a legal proceeding against computer owner" (RG in LP). Allowed me to cross off some answers pretty fast that left one or more out.
I got this right but I am confused in the explanation how one rule is about how access is justified while the other rule is access it not justified #help
@SarinaDev because the first rule is a necessary condition ("only if") and the 2nd rule is a sufficient condition ("if...then"). I know, I was also so confused about this.
204 comments
I think "confiscate" implies taking property against the owner's will. It refers to an authorized seizure where an authority takes possession of an item, typically without the owner's consent or compensation, often as a penalty or to serve a legal purpose. Thus I hesitated and chose D (but I think my main mistake was not noticing the NC and SC, and contraposing properly to reach B. Anywho, that's unrelated to why I thought D satisfied the domain.)
yay im doing so well. i feel more confident everyday
why arent the rules chained up?
like so: Comp. TOB RGBEL -> Justified -> Comp. TOB
I guess it would be pointless to arrive at the conclusion that the computer in typically used in operation of business (Comp. TOB)
@ArthurMorgan I also got stuck here and chained it similar to this. I think the "in addition" is fluff here - we are introducing a new relationship that is not connected to the old one. This might best be illustrated by asking whether there's any value in the argument TOB and RGBEL --> Comp. TOB. If the sufficient conditions here are met, our conclusion is a premise. I believe that this might even be an incorrect way of diagramming this question.
Basically, the second if-then statement is a standalone relationship when compared to the first statement. It provides another rule within the domain of no authorisation to reach the conclusion "justified." The "in addition" wording does not create a logical relationship with the first if-then statement, but is rather fluff.
@slimcharlie great exlaination
I got it right but I have no idea what a "reachable" versus "unreachable" conclusion is. Does anyone have a good way to explain it? helppppp
@Hashibiro Hello, I think what is meant by "reachable" and "unreachable" is the pure logical arguments provided by the stimulus. Here, we have two rules, with "J" in the sufficient condition for one, and necessary in the other. If we contra pose the first rule, we can get two rules that look like this:
~comp TOB --> ~J (logically equivilant to the rule in the video)
comp TOB and TGBEL --> J
(I'm using "~" for negation here)
Here, you can see that our REACHABLE conclusions are Justified and Not Justified. Furthermore, we only have THESE TWO WAYS of reaching either conclusion. If the answer question says "not justified," we MUST meet the sufficient conditions in the first rule to trigger it.
TLDR: Reachable/Unreachable refers to the conclusions which the arguments we have, when translated into Lawgic, support.
HOLY WORDY ASF
Reminder:
If you are a dog, or you are a cat, then you are a mammal.
VALID contrapositive: if you are not a mammal, then you are not a dog and you are not a cat.
INVALID: if you are not a dog or not a cat, then you are not a mammal
what about elephants? monkeys? horses? or literally any other mammal other than dogs and cats?
contrast that argument with this:
If you are a dog, then you are a mammal.
VALID CONCLUSION: If you are not a mammal, then you are not a dog.
when you have an A + B --> C kind of conditional logic, you will NEVER be able to conclude that /C
time ain't important here. felt good about breaking these down (and the rest of the wrong answers)
correct but OVER time
Diagramming is a non negotiable
I misread the stimulus cuz I am a dingus. Noticed the two rules, didn't think both rules needed to be satisfied.
Bruh I suckkk at these QT
I'm confused by "justified" can't be the sufficient condition here? Why can't we just leave it as is? Is it because the second rule has justified in the necessary condition? Or are we just using common sense here that it seems like justified should be the necessary condition? #help #feedback
In the first rule, why would justified be the sufficient condition? The word "if" is a sufficient condition indicator. I know that you cannot go off of the indicator words only, but it made sense to do so in this problem. I drew out that the computer used in a business was the sufficient condition and that it was justified without the authorization as the necessary. So it was like this: used in business-> justified w/o authorization.
@asanchez Hello asanchez, the reason is because "ONLY IF" is a necessary condition indicator. I've been tripped up by this too.
Can someone explain how JY got justified and not justified as two conclusions? and then ignoring one or the other
@jennawiese The first sentence says "only if" (necessary condition indicator). Justified --> business computer. Contrapositive: /business computer --> /justified.
The second sentence says "if" (sufficient condition indicator). Business computer and RGBEL --> justified.
If the answer choice has /justified as the conclusion, you know you're dealing with the first sentence.
Similarly, if the answer choice has justified as the conclusion, you know you're dealing with the second sentence.
Hope that helps!
"BELIEVE" IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
+1 min and 58 sec. The lesson before this really helped how I viewed this question. Very cool to see the lessons paying off! When I first started this journey I would not have gotten this question right at all! Very motivating :)
8 mins but managed to get it right god
I got it right in BR, damn these question types are so hard.
took me 10 minutes but I got it right. My only worry is on timed practice how will I answer this in 2:19 minutes if I will diagram the whole thing?
@OmarAlmi short-handing the diagram or doing it mentally can help! I got it under the time by about half a minute by realizing the right answer could reach the justification (J) conclusion if it fulfilled "computer used in business" (CiB) & "reasonable grounds for evidence in a legal proceeding against computer owner" (RG in LP). Allowed me to cross off some answers pretty fast that left one or more out.
@ckilk That's a great approach, thanks!
I got this one right but I was 3 minutes over the time! :/
I got this right but I am confused in the explanation how one rule is about how access is justified while the other rule is access it not justified #help
@ps939 same
Difficulty is 3 only lmfao
how come you can take the contrapositive of the first rule to determine when something is not justified but you cannot apply that to the second rule?
@SarinaDev because the first rule is a necessary condition ("only if") and the 2nd rule is a sufficient condition ("if...then"). I know, I was also so confused about this.
I was so confident with D, damn I have to work on these types of questions
its ridiculous the amount of confidence I had when I picked D on the first try lol...