-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
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. Joyriding,
however, is the more dangerous crime because it
physically endangers people, whereas only
intellectual property is harmed in the case of
computer crimes.
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of
medical records systems in hospitals could
damage data systems on which human lives
depend, and therefore computer crimes also
cause physical harm to people.
14. The reasoning in Arjun's response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda's
argument
(B) denies Yolanda's conclusion without providing
evidence against it
(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible
(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion
for something that is necessary for his
conclusion
(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is
inconsistent with his own conclusion
OA Later
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. Joyriding,
however, is the more dangerous crime because it
physically endangers people, whereas only
intellectual property is harmed in the case of
computer crimes.
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of
medical records systems in hospitals could
damage data systems on which human lives
depend, and therefore computer crimes also
cause physical harm to people.
14. The reasoning in Arjun's response is flawed because he
(A) fails to maintain a distinction made in Yolanda's
argument
(B) denies Yolanda's conclusion without providing
evidence against it
(C) relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he
has only shown to be possible
(D) mistakes something that leads to his conclusion
for something that is necessary for his
conclusion
(E) uses as evidence a phenomenon that is
inconsistent with his own conclusion
OA Later
