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".
@rjon27 From my understanding, I think your lawgic is right for the second rule. But the first rule isn't that. The first rule is ONLY if, so that's a logically different indicator for whatever comes after that being the necessary conditions.
So that's Justified --> business operations
Then, the next rule says, in addition, if something else happens, then you can also still be justified.
If the second rule said, "In addition, one must also..." then that would look like the way you diagrammed it, then you could combine those to after the justified. But it just said if this other thing happens then you can also get to that same result. This isn't necessary, just sufficient to get there.
I can understand how D fails the first condition by just believing the the computer had been typically used. But, I don't see how D fails the second condition when it explicitly says "there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in operation..". Is it not reasonable to assume it would also then contain usable evidence? Although, I did overlook the word legitimate, importing and smuggling are closely related and evidence could be stored on a legit business computer. I also feel like the use of "confiscated" in this context is consistent with no authorization. The laptop wasn't surrendered.
@aleiapierre123 the part you mentioned about the domain is applicable to real life.
for example:
if you are at an airport and your bag gets taken over to the side for some reason, you will comply with the officer and allow them to access your bag, under the reasonable assumption that there is nothing to hide, meaning, even though they confiscated your bag (by taking it from the conveyor belt) you still consent to them looking in the bag.
and for the operations of business, the difference is simply the belief it was used for business operation and the computer was known to be typically used for operations are thinking/believing something (like bigfoot being real) and knowing something (like the sun will rise in the east) are different from each other.
Does the "in addition" in line 5 make "used in the operation of a business" a sufficient condition for justified in addition to being a necessary condition?
@lilakdunn It took me 17 minutes and I was really struggling. I examined every single word in the answer choices. I am a little worried about getting the answer on time but I also want to get it correct right now so IK my concepts are clean
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
178 comments
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?
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.
got it right!
I worked my lawgic out to be used in business operations + grounds for belief info is evidence --> access info w/o authorization is justified.
I got the answer correct but would like to know how do you know when to separate two logically statements?
@rjon27 From my understanding, I think your lawgic is right for the second rule. But the first rule isn't that. The first rule is ONLY if, so that's a logically different indicator for whatever comes after that being the necessary conditions.
So that's Justified --> business operations
Then, the next rule says, in addition, if something else happens, then you can also still be justified.
If the second rule said, "In addition, one must also..." then that would look like the way you diagrammed it, then you could combine those to after the justified. But it just said if this other thing happens then you can also get to that same result. This isn't necessary, just sufficient to get there.
That's why we separate them.
I can understand how D fails the first condition by just believing the the computer had been typically used. But, I don't see how D fails the second condition when it explicitly says "there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in operation..". Is it not reasonable to assume it would also then contain usable evidence? Although, I did overlook the word legitimate, importing and smuggling are closely related and evidence could be stored on a legit business computer. I also feel like the use of "confiscated" in this context is consistent with no authorization. The laptop wasn't surrendered.
#feedback
@aleiapierre123 the part you mentioned about the domain is applicable to real life.
for example:
if you are at an airport and your bag gets taken over to the side for some reason, you will comply with the officer and allow them to access your bag, under the reasonable assumption that there is nothing to hide, meaning, even though they confiscated your bag (by taking it from the conveyor belt) you still consent to them looking in the bag.
and for the operations of business, the difference is simply the belief it was used for business operation and the computer was known to be typically used for operations are thinking/believing something (like bigfoot being real) and knowing something (like the sun will rise in the east) are different from each other.
Does the "in addition" in line 5 make "used in the operation of a business" a sufficient condition for justified in addition to being a necessary condition?
@KevinLin'sOldUserName How do we go from being Necessary to Sufficient condition here?
Had B chosen for a good minute, chose E because im no longer mentally stable
@JPolus lol!! humour like that is needed in such a time as this... keep at it JP
Okay now how do I do this without panicking about how long it's taking me to read the answer choices/stimulus lol
@lilakdunn fear itself is what keeps you from staying focused:
1) don't start with fear--remind yourself that you ain't afraid of words
2) read through it the first time without constantly going back
3) simplify and shorten info by picking out words that stood out to you
do the same for longer answer choices
@lilakdunn It took me 17 minutes and I was really struggling. I examined every single word in the answer choices. I am a little worried about getting the answer on time but I also want to get it correct right now so IK my concepts are clean
I didn't really understand this question. Is there any way I could some more help on this?