LSAT 64, Logical Reasoning II, Q18, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Lawyer: One is justified in accessing information…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

FACTS: A sufficient condition and necessary condition for accessing computers are given.

Justified in accessing files without permission ➞ the computer must be a business computer.

If the computer is a business computer AND you reasonably think it has data that can be used against the owner in a legal case ➞ you can access the computer.

ANALYSIS: Four of the situations are wrong, and designed to confuse you. On this type of question, make sure you understand exactly what the necessary and sufficient conditions say. 

We can conclude “justified” only with the sufficient condition. We can conclude “not justified” only if we’re missing the necessary condition (i.e. the computer isn’t for business). There might be other ways to prove a search was or wasn’t justified, but we don’t know about them.

___________

1. Who knows? The passage doesn’t talk about authorized access.
2. CORRECT. All you need is a reasonable belief that a business computer has relevant evidence. It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong, as long as the belief was reasonable. 
3. The police officer’s search could have been justified. Maybe her belief was reasonable. Maybe a judge ordered the search. Who knows? We can only conclude “not justified” if the computer isn’t a business computer.
4. This answer doesn’t mention any legal proceeding. We can only say for sure that a search was justified if the evidence will be used in a legal case.
5. We can only conclude “not justified” if the necessary condition is missing. But here the computer was used for business, so the necessary condition was met. The search still might not have been justified, but we can’t say for sure.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---