Q18 - Lawyer: One is justified in

[jennifer]

I was able to answer this question correctly, I was down to B and D, I picked B vs. D because answer choice D mentioned the laptop was "confiscated" thus the owner was aware, and gave authorization? Why is D wrong, am I on to something or did I just get lucky? Thanks

[americano1990]

No.

since (D) concludes that something is Justified, you have to immediately realize that you have to make use of the second of the two given conditionals:

Reasonable ground for legal evidence---> Justified

But in (D) it only talks about business and nothing legal, so we cant conclude that the practice is justified.

Contrast that with (B), where people have reasonable grounds for believing that computer contains legal evidence. Thats why we can conlude that the action is justified.

[monicajamaluddin]

I was able to get the right answer using the following thought process but i dont know if it was the correct approach:

combined and simplified both conditionals to get:

Evidence in legal > Justified > Operations

Evidence in legal > justified

the part about not providing evidence of wrongdoing in this case is irrelevant bc they were justified in accessing the docs

is this the wrong approach?

[syousif3]

Had B and D but ended up choosing D and I cannot figure out why it is wrong

[nlschultheis]

I had it down between B and D as well and ended up choosing D too.

But after re-reading it, I see that it is wrong because in the principle, we are given the two constrains for justification of access:

Justified access --->(only if) comp typically used for business
If reasonable grounds for usable evidence ---> justified access.

Now in D, the wording is very specific in that it states that the "reasonable grounds" were not necessarily for evidence in a legal case, but instead that it was believed "the computer had typically been used in the operation of the importer's legitimate business".

The fact that it was possibly used for business is not sufficient to justify access to the computer and nowhere is it said it was to be used as evidence for a legal matter. Therefore D is wrong.

I picked D myself under timed constraints and I believe i just read this answer choice too quickly with not enough precision for the very tricky and particular wording it uses, trying to combine the two premises of business use of the first premise and the suspect/confiscated aspect that seems to apply to the second premise in fact is wrong on both accounts.

Hope this helps unless i am mistaken.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We have a couple principles stated in the stimulus and are asked to find a judgement that conforms to them.

1st Principle: If one is justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer's owner, then the computer is typically used in the operation of a business.

2nd Principle: If a computer is typically used in the operation of a business and there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the computer contains data usable as evidence in a legal proceeding against the owner, then accessing the data within the computer without the owner's authorization is justified.

Lengthy! But doable. We simply need to compare the judgements in each answer choice and ask ourselves, "do they meet the trigger of either of these principles?" And if so, "do they arrive at the stated outcome?"

The correct answer choice (B) utilizes the 2nd principle. There were reasonable 'beliefs' the computer would contain usable data as evidence in a legal proceeding against the owner and the computer was used in the operation of business. So, the accessing of that information was justified.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope of both principles since the access to the computer was given by the computer's owner.
(C) tries to utilize the 2nd principle but fails to mention whether or not there was a reasonable suspicion that the computer would contain usable data as evidence agains the computer's owner.
(D) suggests that the reasonable suspicion was not of evidence that usable data against the computer's owner could be found on the computer but rather that the computer was used in the operation of the business - not the right reasonable suspicion.
(E) attempts to use the 1st principle that places a requirement on the accessing of such data being justified. However, the police officer had met the requirement and so one is not able to claim that the accessing of such data was not justified.

[jgallorealestate]

I chose B but I'm wondering why D is wrong from the perspective that it reads: "...computer confiscated from an importer whom they suspected of smuggling."

I understand that his computer was typically used during his legitimate business, but typically leaves it open that he used it for smuggling.

[alex.cheng.2012]

justified --> computer used in business
reasonable grounds for belief that computer contains data in legal proceeding against owner --> justified

Incorrect Answers:
(A): This one has justified as the necessary, so we know we're looking at the second conditional. But where is the legal proceeding? Where is the reasonable grounds for belief? This answer fails the sufficient, and thus we cannot conclude anything. Additionally, we don't know if the computer is used in the operation of the business, we only know that it is the store owner's computer. What if it was a personal computer the store owner keeps there to pass the time when the store is slow? Second of all, permission is irrelevant in the case that it is not the store owner's permission. We only know that R works in the store, we have no idea whether R is the store owner. Furthermore, if R was the store owner, why would the answer refer to the computer as "the store owner's computer" and not just "R's computer?"
(C): This has justified as the necessary, so we know we're looking at the second conditional. Similar to A, it fails the sufficient, and thus we cannot conclude anything
(D): This has justified as the necessary, so we're looking at the second conditional. Similar to A and C, it fails the sufficient and therefore we cannot conclude anything. Additionally, we don't know if the computer is used in the operation of business, we only know that they "believe" so. The reasonable grounds thing is only relevant when there is a legal proceeding against the computer's owner. Where's the legal proceeding? We only know they suspect them of smuggling, they aren't actually charging them.
(E): This places justified as the necessary, so we're looking at the second conditional. Similar to A, C, and D, it fails the sufficient, so we cannot conclude anything. Even if we were mistaken and used the first conditional, their actions should have been justified since the computer is used in the operations of business.

Correct Answer (B): There is a legal proceeding against the computer's owners. Although they didn't find any useful evidence, the answer states "contrary to the investigators' reasonable belief." So we know there was reasonable grounds for believing they could obtain evidence to use in the legal proceeding. The conclusion is that their actions were justified. This fits perfectly with the second conditional.

[feekesj]

I had an entirely different perspective on the D vs B debate. Since the principle stated that if the computer contained data usable as evidence.....accessing those FILES is justified without authorization. It doesn't state that anything on computer is open game to be searched.

D states they examined ALL the files (reasonably containing lots of files not pertinent to the suspicion)

B states they examined the ACCOUNTING files on the computer- (much more pertinent to the investigation)

I think if D had stated they accessed only files they thought were pertinent to the smuggling business, it would have also been correct, but since they examined all the files, some of which were not reasonably used for the smuggling business, it is wrong.

[andrewgong01]

What does "If in addition" mean in this context? I was stuck on this problem because I thought the two principles being presented had to be both be met. During the test I found this odd as it seemed circular since once triggers "one is justified" whereas the other principle concludes "one is justified". However, I was reluctant to only apply one principle since we were given two principles to use...

"B" only meets the second principle where indeed there was reasonable belief in wrong doing to use the evidence in a trial then it is justified (regardless of if the wrong doing is proven right or wrong). "B" would not match the first principle at all since "justified" is on the sufficient side...