Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 10 Dec 2016, 11:23

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 136
Schools: ISB, Tuck, Michigan (Ross), Darden, MBS
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 05:49
durgesh79 wrote:
authorization and manipulating the data and
programs they contain is comparable to joyriding
in stolen cars; both involve breaking into private
property and treating it recklessly. Joyriding,
however, is the more dangerous crime because it
physically endangers people, whereas only
intellectual property is harmed in the case of
computer crimes.
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of
medical records systems in hospitals could
damage data systems on which human lives
depend, and therefore computer crimes also
cause physical harm to people.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s
argument
(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible
(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion
for something that is necessary for his
conclusion
(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is
inconsistent with his own conclusion

The conclusion that Yolanda has drawn is that Joyriding is more harmful than hacking.

Arjun in his reply states he disagrees with Yolanda. Implying that hacking is more harmful than joyriding. However in his example he only explains how Hacking can cause injury to people but fails to substantiate that hacking is more harmful than joyriding.

Can anyone explain what is the flaw in this logic?

_________________

-----------------------------------------------------------
'It's not the ride, it's the rider'

Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 07:51
I got C by POE...very good practice...
Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 22:45

The flaw is a scope shift.
First Argun says, unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems, and then arrives at the unwavering conclusion that computer crimes definitely do cause physical harm to people.
The scope shift is his statement of a computer crime that is only possible; and then jumping to the result from this possibility (physical harm to people) is a forgone conclusion. This flaw is captured nicely by (C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown to be possible.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 658
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 7

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2008, 16:36
GMBA85

<Can anyone explain what is the flaw in this logic?>

I am not sure why everybody is so confused about this one. Look at my initial post on this question... I got C as it was clearly mentioning the reasoning.

PS: Feeling little confident after getting it right
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 593 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2008, 18:15
GMBA85 wrote:
durgesh79 wrote:
authorization and manipulating the data and
programs they contain is comparable to joyriding
in stolen cars; both involve breaking into private
property and treating it recklessly. Joyriding,
however, is the more dangerous crime because it
physically endangers people, whereas only
intellectual property is harmed in the case of
computer crimes.
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of
medical records systems in hospitals could
damage data systems on which human lives
depend, and therefore computer crimes also
cause physical harm to people.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s
argument
(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible
(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion
for something that is necessary for his
conclusion
(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is
inconsistent with his own conclusion

The conclusion that Yolanda has drawn is that Joyriding is more harmful than hacking.

Arjun in his reply states he disagrees with Yolanda. Implying that hacking is more harmful than joyriding. However in his example he only explains how Hacking can cause injury to people but fails to substantiate that hacking is more harmful than joyriding.

Can anyone explain what is the flaw in this logic?

(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
>>>False.Arjun gives an example to prove his case.
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun   [#permalink] 06 Jul 2008, 18:15

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and 1 25 Mar 2016, 07:31
According to the Tristate Transportation Authority 0 10 Jul 2013, 03:15
6 The ability to access information via computer is a 26 29 Sep 2009, 06:00
1 The author of a book tracing the relationship of 8 24 Apr 2008, 21:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by