Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipul

Question

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

MrSengupta · Answer

I think the answer to be (D) Lets see the POE

(A) : Why is a distinction required ?
(B) Provides an evidence. So out
(C) That is a phenomenon not that he has only proposed
(D) Yes maybe thinks the hospital one to be general
(E) Not inconsistent.

NutHead · Answer

Hi. Please explain this question taking each option in consideration. Although I chose D as the option but I would like to get a thinking approach on all options.

Linhtang · Answer

Can any expert explain this problem? I think that Yolanda mentioned that "only intellectual property is harmed in the case of computer crimes" and Arjun took example for this case, not a disagreement

gmat1102 · Answer

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

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let us consider the answer options:

(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s argument  The distinction made in Yolanda's argument is that one crime causes physical harm (and the other presumably does not), making it more dangerous. Arjun states: "therefore computer crimes   also   cause physical harm to people". Therefore, he does acknowledge the distinction made by Yolanda - it is only that he believes that this distinction is  not applicable  to computer crimes. We cannot say for sure that he fails to maintain the distinction. Eliminate.

(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing evidence against it  Arjun does provide an example (medical records) which contradicts Yolanda's line of reasoning with respect to computer crimes, which can be considered "evidence". Eliminate.

(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown to be possible Correct.  Computer crimes  may  cause physical harm in the example provided by Arjun. However, this is only a  possibility  in Arjun's example (as evidence by the usage of the word "could"). Arjun's argument relies on this actually happening for his rebuttal to be valid.

(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion  The example provided by Arjun acts as a reason for his conclusion - there could be other such examples and hence this is not strictly  necessary  for his conclusion to be true. Eliminate.

(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his own conclusion  The evidence (example of medical records) is consistent with his conclusion. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer C

Arjun first states that physical damage is possible (could damage....), then concludes that physical damage will happen (also cause....).

This is a shift in Arjun’s stance from what could be possible to a definite occurrence.

glagad · Answer

I understand C is correct, can someone elaborate more on why D is incorrect?

IMO, its because of the "necessity" factor in the OC, I would want to have my understanding validated. Thank you.

Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipul

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

Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipul

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