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".
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?
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.
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?
"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."
Can someone explain why the justified conclusion is not reachable if it's the suff condition?
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.
171 comments
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? -_-
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
Had B chosen for a good minute, chose E because im no longer mentally stable
Okay now how do I do this without panicking about how long it's taking me to read the answer choices/stimulus lol
I didn't really understand this question. Is there any way I could some more help on this?
"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 reachable conclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively."
Can someone explain why the justified conclusion is not reachable if it's the suff condition?
can someone explain to me how did he transfer the "no authorization" up to domain? Maybe i didnt quite understand the rule? help
I got this on the dot, can I get a pizza party?
super helpful explanations ty!
[This comment was deleted.]