Bunuel 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
Y says that Cyber crime and Car stealing are same. Except for one point.
Cyber Crime - IP is harmed
Car Stealing - Physical property is harmed
A says that Cyber crime is equally severe. And gives example in the form of hypothesis.
Y gives concrete example but A presents hypothesis.
A. Arjun is disagreeing to Y’s argument and thus his set of analogy can be different. But this does not explain why the reasoning is flawed.
B. Arjun provides the evidence by giving the example of Hospital data.
D. Arjun does not confuse ‘good to have’ with ‘must to have’
E. The only conclusion is ‘I disagree’ and Arjun’s presumes supports the conclusion.
C. Arjun introduces a hypothesis (probabilistic) to arrive at a (absolute / concrete) conclusion.
Hence C is the answer.
Posted from my mobile device