PT149 S3 Q7 ExplanationGerald: Unless a customer secures

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   can be considered illegal under current

   Why this is right

   We can derive the Agree position from Kendra’s statements, since she says that using someone’s wifi requires stopping for a while, which could be considered loitering or harassment (both of which are presumably illegal under current law). We can derive the Disagree position from Gerald, who explicitly says in his 2nd claim that it can’t be considered illegal.

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

   80%
2. B

   Unsupported Agree Position9% picked this

   is like

   We know that Gerald disagrees. He says it’s not trespassing, or at least implies it by saying, “it’s no more trespassing than [this other thing that is not trespassing].” But we have no support for the idea that Kendra thinks it is trespassing.

   9%
3. C

   Out of Scope: should be5% picked this

   should be prohibited by

   Neither person is speaking about whether this behavior should / shouldn’t be prohibited, only about whether it is / isn’t illegal.

   5%
4. D

   Unsupported Disagree Position2% picked this

   requires a considerable length of

   We know that Kendra agrees with this, but we can’t support from Gerald’s statements that he believes that stopping to use someone’s wifi does not require a considerable length of time.

   2%
5. E

   Out of Scope: accidental log-in4% picked this

   could be done without intending to

   Neither party is talking about whether people occasionally access someone else’s wifi without intending to do so. We certainly couldn’t infer from either person’s statements that “accessing someone else’s wifi cannot be done unintentionally”.

   4%