Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q13 An issue in dispute between Yolanda

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Yolandas Statements

1. Hacking into a computer is kinda like breaking into someone's car and joyriding. 2. Both computer hacking and car jacking / joyriding involve breaking into private property and being reckless with it. 3. Joyriding is more dangerous than computer hacking. 4. Joyriding physically endangers people. 5. Computer hacking only harms intellectual property.

Arjuns Statements

1. Some part of that is wrong! 2. Hacking into a medical/hospital computer system could mess up their data and screw up life-or-death patient information. 3. Computer hacking also causes physical harm to people.

Evaluate

Which of J's five claims, if any, is A disagreeing with? (If no explicit claims are disagreed with, then we ask ourselves about J's assumptions)

It seems like A's last claim clearly conflicts with J's last claim.

Goal

So lets look for an answer that's like .

13.

An issue in dispute between Yolanda and Arjun is

  1. whether joyriding physically endangers human

    No Comment from A

    Since A doesn't discuss joyriding at all, we have no support that he disagrees with this part of Y's statements.

    1% picked this

  2. whether the unauthorized manipulation of

    Both Probably Agree

    2nd person doesn't actually talk about damage to property, just physical harm. But presumably he'd agree with this anyway.

    3% picked this

  3. whether damage to physical property

    Out of Scope: more criminal

    Neither person was assessing whether X was more / less / equally criminal to Y. Person 1 was assessing whether X was more / less / equally dangerous to Y.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    whether the unauthorized use of

    Why this is right

    This is not my favorite answer. Arjun isn't directly weighing in on the comparison question: Which is more dangerous -- joyriding or hacking? Arjun just points out that hacking also has the potential to do physical harm. But it's supportable that Arjun would say "hacking is basically as dangerous as joyriding", since he's enthusiastically! disagreeing with Yolanda, by bringing up that hacking can also do people physical harm. Yolanda explicitly says "joyriding is the more dangerous crime (than hacking)".

    Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    83% picked this

  5. whether treating private property recklessly

    Both Would Agree

    For someone to disagree with this claim, they'd be arguing that "treating private property recklessly is never a dangerous crime". There's no way Person 1 or 2 is taking that side of the issue.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free