Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was justified. In order to reach that conclusion, we need to use the second principle. But the evidence doesn’t establish that there’s reasonable grounds to think the computer info has evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding.

Correct, because it validly uses the second principle. The premises establish that the computer is typically used in operation of a business (because it’s the central computer owned by a consulting firm). They also establish that it was reasonable to think the computer would have evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding against the owner (because the investigator had “reasonable beliefs” that there would be evidence of wrongdoing). Thus, using the second principle, we can conclude that accessing info on the computer was justified. It doesn’t matter that no evidence of wrongdoing was actually found.

Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was not justified, so the argument must rely on the first principle. But the premises don’t establish that the computer was not typically used in operation of a business.

Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that the action was justified, so the argument must rely on the second principle. But the premises don’t establish that there were reasonable grounds to believe the computer contained evidence that can be used in a legal proceeding. The premises establish only that there were reasonable grounds to think the computer was typically used in operation of a legitimate business.

Wrong evidence. The conclusion is that an action was not justified, so the argument relies on the first principle. But the premises do not establish that the computer was not typically used in operation of a business.