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

 It is currently 23 Feb 2017, 19:09

### 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

Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 09:10
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 629
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 1

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 10:38
I think it's A. Joyriding causes DIRECT physical harm, accessing computers and manipulating data cause harm to intellectual property that can potentially cause harm to someone's physical health (INDIRECT physical harm).
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Houston TX
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 10:45
IMO D
_________________

haveaniceday

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 10:57
I get A as well.

The act of joy riding can hurt someone.

The act of of computer hacking can't hurt anyone (unless you count carpal tunnel). The result of the act however can hurt someone. Arjun fails to see this distinction and implies computer hacking is as dangerous as joyriding.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 658
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 7

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 11:07
I think its C

{(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown to be possible}

Arjuna is disagreeing with an example that 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.

But he is missing the main part "Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipulating the data "

He is actually relying on a fact that getting a computer access will allow you to damage the data system.

PLease comment if I am thinking too far!!!
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 658
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 7

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 11:08
BTW ... what is the correct answer?
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 279
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 13:14
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

LOL, this seems to be a tough question. I came up with E. The argument is about danger from joyriding and danger from unauthorized use of computer. The second guy said that "unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend.."

Medical records may or may be not related to computers. These records might be documented in paper and some bad guys get an access to them. This is a big hole in his argument. He brings new topics to the argument that is not relevant and he use this premise to come up with his conclusion.

Therefore, I choose (E).
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 17:42
devilmirror 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

LOL, this seems to be a tough question. I came up with E. The argument is about danger from joyriding and danger from unauthorized use of computer. The second guy said that "unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend.."

Medical records may or may be not related to computers. These records might be documented in paper and some bad guys get an access to them. This is a big hole in his argument. He brings new topics to the argument that is not relevant and he use this premise to come up with his conclusion.

Therefore, I choose (E).

He says medical record systems not medical records. He's clearly referring to a computer system that has medical records. He argues that damaging these systems could hurt people just like joyriding could. For example someone could change the information about allergies in the system and a doctor could give medicine to someone who is allergic and get sick or worse die. But he fails to see the distinction that the act of joyriding can kill someone directly whereas the the act of hacking the medical system can't.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 279
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 21:23
gixxer1000 wrote:
devilmirror wrote:
durgesh79 wrote:

He says medical record systems not medical records. He's clearly referring to a computer system that has medical records. He argues that damaging these systems could hurt people just like joyriding could. For example someone could change the information about allergies in the system and a doctor could give medicine to someone who is allergic and get sick or worse die. But he fails to see the distinction that the act of joyriding can kill someone directly whereas the the act of hacking the medical system can't.

I will argue that medical record systems may not be related to computer system. People can build medical record systems based entirely on paper filing systems.

Am I thinking too much?
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 22:13
Guys, this is a tricky one. OA is neither A nor E.
Director
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 733
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 22:22
durgesh79 wrote:
Guys, this is a tricky one. OA is neither A nor E.

Is it B

Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 22:50
alpha_plus_gamma wrote:
durgesh79 wrote:
Guys, this is a tricky one. OA is neither A nor E.

Is it B

No. Its not B.

I have OA, but i dont have OE. Appriciate if someone can clarify this CR.
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 625 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 23:04
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

D

mistakes something(joyriding) that leads to his conclusion for something (causes physical harm)that is necessary for his conclusion((causes physical harm)
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 23:11
OA is C.
Its an LSAT problem.
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 625 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2008, 23:33
durgesh79 wrote:
OA is C.
Its an LSAT problem.

Where di you find this gem ?;-)

I have no idea what on earth this means - relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2008, 00:27
goalsnr wrote:

Where di you find this gem ?;-)

I have no idea what on earth this means - relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible

same here. After knowing that C is the answer we can put our thoughts around it.... but i couldnt do it before.
As i said its an LSAT problem taken from sample LSAT paper tests. i feel they are good for CR practice.
http://lsac.org/LSAT/lsat-prep-materials.asp
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 625 [1] , given: 10

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2008, 06:57
1
KUDOS
durgesh79 wrote:
goalsnr wrote:

Where di you find this gem ?;-)

I have no idea what on earth this means - relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible

same here. After knowing that C is the answer we can put our thoughts around it.... but i couldnt do it before.
As i said its an LSAT problem taken from sample LSAT paper tests. i feel they are good for CR practice.
http://lsac.org/LSAT/lsat-prep-materials.asp

Ok lets try again . Lets do some reverse engineering -try to prove C can be correct

Yolanda:1. Joyriding,however, is the more dangerous crime because it physically endangers people, whereas only
2. 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
- therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown to be possible

Yolanda says joyriding can cause physical harm and computer crimes can only cause harm to intellectual property
Arjun disagrees to Yolanda's idea about computer crime and physical harm and provides a scenario where data ca be manipulated and the corrupted data can cause can affect the medical systems/equipment and affect the patients. In his arguments he makes assumption that the data is important to keep the patients alive.Not all patients are dependent on such systems critical .For some patients the data may be a record of body status -BP, weight, height, prescription history - factors not very So when he replies to Yolanda he actually believe the scenario can happen. This is the flaw in his reasoning. Patients may /may not be hooked to Medical data may contain
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 625 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2008, 07:20
Now lets see how to prove other choices wrong.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s
argument
>>>Yolanda - joyriding - physical damage, computer crimes- harm to IP,no physical harm
Arjun - computer crimes ->physical harm

False.There is a distiction. Both A and Y talk about computer crimes and have different perspectives about what computer crime can affect.

(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
>>>False.Arjun gives an example to prove his case.

(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
>>>mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
mistakes X for Y
X - computer crimes cause medical manipulation
Y - medical manipulation can cause physical harm

(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his own conclusion
>>>evidence - example to prove medical data can cause physical harm
conclusion - computer crimes can cause physical harm
False - evidence is consistent with the conclusion

Let me know what you think.
Director
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 733
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2008, 07:37
goalsnr wrote:
Now lets see how to prove other choices wrong.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s
argument
>>>Yolanda - joyriding - physical damage, computer crimes- harm to IP,no physical harm
Arjun - computer crimes ->physical harm

False.There is a distiction. Both A and Y talk about computer crimes and have different perspectives about what computer crime can affect.

(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
>>>False.Arjun gives an example to prove his case.

(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
>>>mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
mistakes X for Y
X - computer crimes cause medical manipulation
Y - medical manipulation can cause physical harm

(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his own conclusion
>>>evidence - example to prove medical data can cause physical harm
conclusion - computer crimes can cause physical harm
False - evidence is consistent with the conclusion

Let me know what you think.

Thanks for the efforts, I can think this way on real exam
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2008, 08:22
goalsnr wrote:
Now lets see how to prove other choices wrong.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda’s
argument
>>>Yolanda - joyriding - physical damage, computer crimes- harm to IP,no physical harm
Arjun - computer crimes ->physical harm

False.There is a distiction. Both A and Y talk about computer crimes and have different perspectives about what computer crime can affect.

(B) denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing
evidence against it
>>>False.Arjun gives an example to prove his case.

(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
>>>mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary for his conclusion
mistakes X for Y
X - computer crimes cause medical manipulation
Y - medical manipulation can cause physical harm

(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his own conclusion
>>>evidence - example to prove medical data can cause physical harm
conclusion - computer crimes can cause physical harm
False - evidence is consistent with the conclusion

Let me know what you think.

Good explanation... Kudos +1.

Another point against D. I dont think Arjun is mistaking X for Y. His reasoning is flawed becuase of other reasons but he is not making a mistake in putting his conclusion.
Re: CR Yolanda and Arjun   [#permalink] 04 Jul 2008, 08:22

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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