While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in pu

Question

Competition Mode Question

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public if they have just cause, they can search our homes only if they have a signed warrant. Therefore, our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.

The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?

(A) Our electronic communications are at least as private as our homes.

(B) A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to discover something worthwhile to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications.

(C) Hasty search of electronic communications, like that of homes, violates basic human rights.

(D) In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even more trustworthy sources of information than homes.

(E) In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement, electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons.

Kinshook · Answer

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public if they have just cause, they can search our homes only if they have a signed warrant. Therefore, our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.

The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?

A. Our electronic communications are at least as private as our homes.

B. A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to discover something worthwhile to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications.

C. Hasty search of electronic communications, like that of homes, violates basic human rights.

D. In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even more trustworthy sources of information than homes.
 
 E. In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement, electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons.

E is the correct answer since it fills the gap by providing a reason why electronics communication is comparable to homes rather than bodily persons with respect to search by law enforcement.

Other options A,B,C & D are irrelevant to the conclusion.

IMO E

MayankSingh · Answer

IMO-E

Premise: Nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public but our homes only if they have a signed warrant.
Conclusion: Our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.

So a premise that can relate Electronic communication & home would justify why that can be searched only if signed warrant available.

A. Our electronic communications are at least as  private  as our homes. ---  Incorrect  ---- Argument not mention that because home is private so signed warrant required and so are our electronic communication.

B. A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to  discover something worthwhile  to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications. ---  Incorrect  ----This choice not relate electronic communication to home. Also purpose is immaterial here to compare.

C.  Hasty search  of electronic communications, like that of homes, violates  basic human rights . ---  Incorrect  ----Whether signed warrant will not lead to hasty search is doubtful.

D. In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even  more trustworthy sources  of information than homes. ---  Incorrect  ---- Just because its more trustworthy so it should be carried out post signed warrant actually weakens the conclusion. it should be other way out.

E. In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement, electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons. --  Correct  --- This provides a comparison between home and bodily person with respect to electronic communication & therefore conclusion holds good post this.

EncounterGMAT · Answer

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public if they have just cause, they can search our homes only if they have a signed warrant. Therefore, our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.

The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an  additional premise ?

Let's jot down the points:
Premise: body search - just cause/lawful reason
Premise: home search - warrant
Premise: ?
Conclusion: telephone search - warrant

The missing premise can be - since home and telephone are related to an individual, signed warrant is mandatory, or any other reason to prove that home,phones and body check have something important similarity to make warrant necessary to examine them.

A.  Our electronic communications are at least as private as our homes . - A contender according to me. everything related to a person is private. From the premise, body,home and telephone access need prior permission.

B.  A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to discover something worthwhile to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications.  totally out of scope

C. Hasty search of electronic communications, like that of homes, violates basic human rights.  - In layman terms if you notice, every type of search is violation of basic human rights but nothing is mentioned about any violation of human rights. Reject the option.

D.  In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even more trustworthy sources of information than homes.  Another strong contender but incorrect.

E. In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement, electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons. -> since electronic communications are more comparable to homes, both would require a legal signed warrant as both of them are way much of priority than bodily check, which only requires just cause.  CORRECT!

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
prem: law can do a body search in public if they have just cause;
prem: law can search our home if they have warrant;
conclusion: only if they have a warrant they can search our electronics.
asump: the criteria for searching electronics is more comparable to home than to body search (you have to link the warrant to electronics)

(A) this is a trap: we might assume this, but the stem never mentions it, out;
(B) irev;
(C) irev;
(D) irev;

Answer (E)

rishab0507 · Answer

Premise is asking for a support to put electronic equipments at par with homes. If home require search warrant, we need to question why electronic equipment should also need. If and only if they hold same value to a person.

A. Our electronic communications are at least as private as our homes.:  Question doesn't give emphasis to what is more valueable for search, Incorrect. It can be 2nd best choice answer also. looks like trap

B. A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to discover something worthwhile to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications. :  Opposite , to what we are looking for
 
C. Hasty search of electronic communications, like that of homes, violates basic human rights.  : No discussion of human rights in premise

D. In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even more trustworthy sources of information than homes. :  It can be but we need to prove why they need to have warrant to search home, only being trustworthy cannot be factor.

E. In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement, electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons.

IMO :E

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation In our approach, we can see that this argument is perfect for term matching. You might immediately sense the mismatch of terms, or you might have recognized the argument as one of those pseudo-syllogistic arguments, which are ripe for term matching. https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=49960 Note that, even though we have list the conclusion on the right side in these term-matching tables, you may find it easier to identify the conclusion first and fill in those terms first, since the conclusion is identifiable by its opinion-charged language. In this case, the prompt mentions "electronic communications" for the first time in the conclusion. The fact that the term doesn't show up in the evidence statements hints at a missing logical bridge--in this case, it must be between "electronic communications" and "homes." If those two things are equivalent in all ways relevant to the argument, then the conclusion is logically drawn. Applying the filter: (A), (D), and (E) all show some promise. Choices (A) and (D) both generate new problems by introducing out-of-scope concepts, unmatched terms: "private" and "trustworthy." (E) is incredibly exact in equating "electronic communications" and "homes" for the purposes of the argument. Logical proof: we can use the negation test. If (E) were false, then electronic communications would not be more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons. They could be more comparable to bodily persons, and then they would be searchable without a warrant, and the argument would fall apart. Hence the non-negated (E) is indeed a premise of the argument. The correct answer is (E). image018.jpg

harsh778 · Answer

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public if they have just cause, they can search our homes only if they have a signed warrant. Therefore, our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.

The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?

Indirectly the stem asks us to strengthen the argument by adding the premise

Breaking the argument

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in public if they have just cause, they can search our homes only if they have a signed warrant. - A fact that states Law Enforcement EF can do a search for 2 causes. First, if they have a cause and second if they have a signed warrant.

Therefore, our nation's law enforcement should be able to search our electronic communications only if they have a signed warrant.  - it is a conclusion of the author - about the third aspect Electronic communications

Here the author assumes the EC are as private as our home and LE should take a signed warrant to do the search.

We need something from the answer choice option that links privacy of the EC to the requirement of a signed warrant.

(A) Our electronic communications are at least as private as our homes. -  An assumption made by author to make the conclusion. No additional info to support the conclusion or our assumption  - INCORRECT

(B) A search of a bodily person in public is more likely to discover something worthwhile to law enforcement than a search of electronic communications.  Not relevant, We are not concerned about what it will discover and how likely it is to discover something. - INCORRECT

(C) Hasty search of electronic communications, like that of homes,  violates basic human right s.  We are not concerned about any human right violations as per the asgument  -INCORRECT

(D) In the experience of our nation's law enforcement, electronic communications are even  more trustworthy sources of information than homes .- NOT RELEVANT -  no question of trustworthiness here. Also, we are not concerned about the 'In the experience of our nation's law enforcement' - simple out of context
 
(E) In terms of the criteria used to justify a search by law enforcement,  electronic communications are more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons . 
-CORRECT  - it mentions why a signed warrant is needed to search EC and it relates its comparison explicitly to Homes over Bodily person

vaibhav1221 · Answer

between A and E, E seems to be the stronger option as it has a stronger base.
Considering something is personal vs something that is written in the law about the same thing being personal.
Which one wins?
Something that is laid down in the foundation, of course.

TargetMBA007 · Answer

Hi guys,

Just wondering, if this should be tagged as an "Find assumption" question?

Looks at tags of related questions here https://gmatclub.com/forum/search.php?s ... 6d04b905ab - It seems some people classify these questions as "strengthen". Some clarity from experts here would be useful, about the classification of questions with such a stem?

Thekingmaker · Answer

it took more than average even though it was an average question only the final question addresses all the issues, we don't whrther we can compare with violation human rights , others are out of content hence E

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in pu

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

While our nation's law enforcement can search our bodily persons in pu

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards