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.
how is J both a sufficient condition and a necessary condition, and how is comp t b both necessary and sufficient? that one was confusing me during the question, but i got the question right
my conclusion here is, if you read an answer you believe perfectly fits the rule select it and move onto the next one. Don't second guess yourself by reading the rest of the answers and wasting time.
Rule 1: justified only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business.
Now consider two conclusions: access is justified versus access if not justified. Which conclusion is reachable via the first rule? Access is not justified. That is a reachableconclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively. In other words, we need a premise establishing that the computer is not typically used in the operation of a business. The conclusion that access is justified is unreachable via this rule.
I got this question right but you have lost me entirely here. How is justified an unreachable conclusion via this rule. How is it not
Computer typically used in business -> Justified
Instead we're contrapositing the rule??? I genuinely don't understand. Is it just because of the grammar that we are interpreting the original rule as
Justified -> computer typically used in business
and turning it into
/computer typically used in business -> /justified
I just don't understand how using rule 1 we cant reach the conclusion that someone is justified. Especially when it says "One is justified if X".
@MLugo1998 I also got it right by intuition, but not confident I can apply that intuition to other questions like this one...
I got really hung up on the explanation as well, but you have to focus on what the rules say and try to avoid making real world sense of it. It's truly a nec/suff puzzle.
rule 1 -
IF justified in accessing computer without auth, THEN the computer must typically be used in operation of business.
justified -> op biz
/op biz -> /justified
rule 2 -
IF computer used typically in operation of business and reasonable grounds it contains material usable in legal processings against owner, THEN you must have been justified in accessing the computer without auth.
op biz and legal evidence -> justified
/justified -> /op biz or /legal evidence
Here's how I applied that to the ACs -
A - conc. justified. Rule 2. No mention of legal evidence. Wrong.
B - conc. justified. Rule 2. Meets both suff cond. Correct!
C - conc. not justified. Rule 1. Comp used in operations of business. Cannot come to that conclusion. Wrong.
@AkshayaAnnampedu By the time you take the test, you want to be able to understand most problems involving conditionals in your head. But drawing something out on paper might be useful for 1 or 2 problems in a section.
I'm having some trouble when considering the contrapositive. Are we able to use premise one (J --> computer TOB) to conclude /J because it's a sufficient condition and the contrapositive makes it a necessary condition? But we can't do this with premise two (computer TOB and RGBEL --> J) to be /J because that makes the sufficient necessary?
**Spark note; when and how can we determine to use De Morgans law re; contrapositive? #help #tutor?
That allows us to reach the following conclusions: B (if we know that A is true). Or /A (if we know that /B is true).
That structure applies to every conditional. You can NEVER use a conditional to prove that the sufficient condition is true or that the necessary condition is not true. You can only use it to prove that the necessary condition is true or the the sufficient condition is not true.
DeMorgan's applies whenever you have to negate an "and" or an "or." Such as when taking the contrapositive of a conditional that uses "and" or "or". It's just a fancy word for the idea that the negation of "A and B" is "/A or /B" and the negation of "A or B" is "/A AND /B".
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
188 comments
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.
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...
how is J both a sufficient condition and a necessary condition, and how is comp t b both necessary and sufficient? that one was confusing me during the question, but i got the question right
If this question had "if true" in the question stem (regarding the answer choices), would D be correct?
my conclusion here is, if you read an answer you believe perfectly fits the rule select it and move onto the next one. Don't second guess yourself by reading the rest of the answers and wasting time.
Domain: Accessing computer files
Owner
Computer used in business AND usable as evidence -> justified w/o authorization
I got this question right but you have lost me entirely here. How is justified an unreachable conclusion via this rule. How is it not
Computer typically used in business -> Justified
Instead we're contrapositing the rule??? I genuinely don't understand. Is it just because of the grammar that we are interpreting the original rule as
Justified -> computer typically used in business
and turning it into
/computer typically used in business -> /justified
I just don't understand how using rule 1 we cant reach the conclusion that someone is justified. Especially when it says "One is justified if X".
Is this just sufficiency, necessity again? -_-
@MLugo1998 I also got it right by intuition, but not confident I can apply that intuition to other questions like this one...
I got really hung up on the explanation as well, but you have to focus on what the rules say and try to avoid making real world sense of it. It's truly a nec/suff puzzle.
rule 1 -
IF justified in accessing computer without auth, THEN the computer must typically be used in operation of business.
justified -> op biz
/op biz -> /justified
rule 2 -
IF computer used typically in operation of business and reasonable grounds it contains material usable in legal processings against owner, THEN you must have been justified in accessing the computer without auth.
op biz and legal evidence -> justified
/justified -> /op biz or /legal evidence
Here's how I applied that to the ACs -
A - conc. justified. Rule 2. No mention of legal evidence. Wrong.
B - conc. justified. Rule 2. Meets both suff cond. Correct!
C - conc. not justified. Rule 1. Comp used in operations of business. Cannot come to that conclusion. Wrong.
D - conc. justified. Rule 2. Officials beliefs don't meet suff cond. Wrong.
E - conc. not justified. Rule 1. Computer used in operation of business. Fails suff condition. Wrong.
@MLugo1998 oh! also -
You've confused the nec/suff condition. It says "One is justified ONLY IF operation of business."
OR the contrapositive would say "One is not justified IF not operation of business."
The amount of text in the answer choices should be illegal
Do you recommend diagramming/writing out Lawgic or notes on the test? Does time allow for that or should we start doing that in our head?
@AkshayaAnnampedu By the time you take the test, you want to be able to understand most problems involving conditionals in your head. But drawing something out on paper might be useful for 1 or 2 problems in a section.
@Kevin_Lin Makes sense, thank you @Kevin_Lin !
Is the "in addition" how we get to two sufficient conditions in rule 2? Because I thought rule 2 would be only the second listed sufficient condition.
8:32 mins to get it right during BR LMAO
I'm having some trouble when considering the contrapositive. Are we able to use premise one (J --> computer TOB) to conclude /J because it's a sufficient condition and the contrapositive makes it a necessary condition? But we can't do this with premise two (computer TOB and RGBEL --> J) to be /J because that makes the sufficient necessary?
**Spark note; when and how can we determine to use De Morgans law re; contrapositive? #help #tutor?
@Bgsolo That's right.
A --> B
That allows us to reach the following conclusions: B (if we know that A is true). Or /A (if we know that /B is true).
That structure applies to every conditional. You can NEVER use a conditional to prove that the sufficient condition is true or that the necessary condition is not true. You can only use it to prove that the necessary condition is true or the the sufficient condition is not true.
DeMorgan's applies whenever you have to negate an "and" or an "or." Such as when taking the contrapositive of a conditional that uses "and" or "or". It's just a fancy word for the idea that the negation of "A and B" is "/A or /B" and the negation of "A or B" is "/A AND /B".
Got it Right and 48 Seconds under Time but man these are mouthfulls both questions and answers.