Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q14 The reasoning in Arjun’s response

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.

Arjuns Conclusion

Joyriding is not more dangerous than hacking computers.

Arjuns Intermediate Conclusion

Computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

Arjuns Evidence

Hacking into a hospital's medical records could damage life-or-death data systems.

Evaluate

Arjun's response seems pretty reasonable to me, so I'm wondering where they want us to go with this one. There does seem to be a leap in strength/certainty, going from "hacking into a hospital could damage data systems" to "computer crimes cause physical harm to people".

And then there's also the nitpicky issue that the Arjun established that computers indirectly could lead to harm (by damaging data systems which might then lead to incorrect treatment decisions which could then lead to harm).

But his conclusion isn't really capturing that nuance. It sounds like hacking directly causes physical harm to people.

Goal

Look for answer complaining about the shift from "could damage data systems" to "does cause physical harm", either in terms of the conclusion being stronger than what's warranted to sounding more directly causal than what's warranted.

14.

The reasoning in Arjun's response is flawed because he

  1. fails to maintain a distinction

    Wrong Complaint

    The only distinction Yolanda made was that joyriding is more dangerous than hacking. Yes, Arjun fails to maintain that distinction, but that's because his conclusion is to disagree with it, so we wouldn't fault him for having a conclusion that opposes someone else's position.

    26% picked this

  2. denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing

    Contradicted

    Arjun provides evidence, starting with the words "For example, ..."

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    relies on the actuality of

    Why this is right

    This answer is testing a distinction that showed up a handful of times on older tests: Possible vs. Certain Arjun's premise is that "hacking hospitals could damage the data systems on which human lives depend", and then from that he concludes that "computer crimes cause physical harm to people". To make a grotesque analogy, I could say "a lipstick applicator could be jammed into someone's trachea, clogging their air passageway and suffocating them. Therefore, lipstick applicators also kill people."

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

    47% picked this

  4. mistakes something that leads to

    Wrong Flaw

    This language belongs to the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise and then illegally applies it in a Backwards or Opposite fashion. There was no conditional logic in Arjun's argument, so this can't possibly match.

    15% picked this

  5. uses as evidence a phenomenon

    Wrong Flaw

    The language of "evidence is inconsistent with conclusion" (or with other evidence) belongs to the famous Internal Contradiction flaw, which is almost never correct. Arjun didn't contradict himself.

    6% 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