Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q18 Lawyer: One is justified

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

Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer's owner only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business.

Principles

Computer is not typically not justified in used in operation of → accessing info a business w/o permission

Computer typically used for business justified in + → accessing info Reasonable to think w/o permission computer has info useful against owner in a trial

Evaluation / Goal

We have a principle that says unauthorized access is unjustified, and one saying unauthorized access is justified.

So before we read each answer choice, we should check whether it's trying to conclude "unjustified" or "justified" so that we know whether to use Rule 1 or Rule 2.

18.

The principles stated by the lawyer most strongly support which one of the following judgments?

  1. Rey gave his friend Sunok

    Bad Rule 2 Match

    Since this is trying to conclude "justified", we should look at rule 2. Does this establish the computer is typically for business or that we have reasonable belief that something on the computer could be used against the owner in trial? Nothing even close to that, in fact this isn't even an unauthorized access, so these principles really don't apply.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Police department investigators accessed the

    Why this is right

    This is trying to conclude "justified", so we look at rule 2. - Do we establish that the computer is typically used for business? Yes, it's the central computer for this firm. - Do we establish that it's reasonable to think that it has info that could be used against its owner in a trial? Yes, the investigators had reasonable beliefs that the files would provide evidence of wrongdoing, and the firm's owners are currently on trial for fraudulent business practices.

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

    76% picked this

  3. A police officer accessed, without

    Bad Rule 1 Match

    This is trying to conclude "not justified", so we look at Rule 1. Does this establish that the computer is not typically used for business? No, the opposite. It establishes that it is exclusively used for business.

    4% picked this

  4. Customs officials examined all of

    Bad Rule 2 Match

    This is trying to conclude "justified", so we look at Rule 2. Does this establish that the computer is typically used for business? No, it establishes that there were reasonable grounds for believing it was typically used for business. Does this establish that it was reasonable to believe that there was info on the computer that could be used against its owner in a trial? No, it doesn't discuss that at all.

    17% picked this

  5. Against the company owner's wishes,

    Bad Rule 1 Match

    This is trying to conclude "not justified", so we look to Rule 1. Does this establish that "the computer was not typically used for business"? No, it says the opposite. The computer was typically used in the operation of the business.

    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