PT64.S3.Q18 - lawyer: one is justified in accessing

stcaitmokyu

Hi, I'm not sure why D is wrong and B is correct...
since it says there was reasonable grounds...etc I thought it follows the conditional statement and it's justified.
Any ideas why D is wrong ?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-18/

blah170blah

Answer choice (D) misapplies the second principle: usable evidence against owner --> justified access without owner authorization

(D) states that they confiscated the computer because the importer was considered suspicious of smuggling. However, suspicion of person is not the same as being suspicious that the computer contains usable evidence against the owner. (B) does address this by saying that they had reason to believe the computer contained evidence, even though it was later proved that there was no wrongdoing.

stcaitmokyu

I see...thanks.
By the way, it says "In addition" in the stimuli, does it mean the 1st conditional statement (principle) is added to the sufficient part of the second conditional statement (principle)? So, the 2 principles are actually combined and there is one big principle. or there are just 2 separate conditional statements? Did I think too much about the "in additiona" part?

blah170blah

They are 2 separate conditional statements.