Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S3 · Q7 Gerald: Unless a customer secures

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

Gerald: Unless a consumer secures his or her home wireless Internet service, anyone strolling by is able to access that person’s service with certain laptop computers or smartphones.

Gerald’s Claims

1. If a consumer doesn’t secure their home wifi network, then anyone strolling by is able to access that service with their laptop or smartphone.

2. Such use cannot be considered illegal under current laws

3. It wouldn’t be considered trespassing, just like it wouldn’t be considered trespassing to walk by someone’s house and enjoy the music you hear coming out of their window.

Kendra’s Responses

1. No comment.

2. Possible Disagree? She seems to argue that stopping to use someone’s wifi could be considered loitering or harassment, both of which can be considered illegal.

3. Definitely disagrees with analogy. She might agree that it’s not trespassing, but she doesn’t think the hearing music analogy is solid, because it omits the crucial difference that with hearing music you keep strolling whereas with using someone’s wifi, you actually stop for a considerable length of time right outside their house.

Evaluate / Goal

The areas of disagreement are whether or not stopping to use someone’s wifi could be considered illegal (like loitering or harassment), as well as whether or not it’s fair to compare using someone’s wifi to listening to the music that is playing inside their house.

Gerald's and Kendra's positions indicate that they disagree over whether accessing someone's wireless Internet service while walking down the street

Correct
can be considered illegal under
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% picked this
is like trespassing
Unsupported Agree Position
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% picked this
should be prohibited by law
Out of Scope: should be
Neither person is speaking about whether this behavior should / shouldn’t be prohibited, only about whether it is / isn’t illegal.
5% picked this
requires a considerable length of
Unsupported Disagree Position
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% picked this
could be done without intending
Out of Scope: accidental log-in
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% 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