|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 136
Schools: ISB, Tuck, Michigan (Ross), Darden, MBS
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]
 05 Jul 2008, 06:49
durgesh79 wrote: Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without
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 IMO the answer is B.
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: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]
05 Jul 2008, 08:51
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]
05 Jul 2008, 23:45
The correct answer is C.
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: 661
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
47
[0], given: 7
|
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]
06 Jul 2008, 17:36
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: 1384
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 10
|
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]
06 Jul 2008, 19:15
GMBA85 wrote: durgesh79 wrote: Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without
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 IMO the answer is B.
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, 19:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
