PrepTest 134

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that the access was authorized, so we'll need to look to principle #2. This computer meets the first sufficient condition, but there's no indication that Sunok believed the computer had usable evidence in a legal proceeding, so this answer isn't supported by the principle.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
(1) Justified in unauthorized access → Computer typically used in business
(2) Computer typically used in business AND Reason to believe evidence in legal proceeding against owner → Justified in unauthorized access

Answer Anticipation:
This Must Be True (Principle) question falls into a common pattern—two principles are stated with related judgments (here, justified unauthorized access), so we can approach this as we would a normal Must Be True (Principle) question and get through it quickly despite these unbelievably long answer choices! But first, let's work through the principles.

The first is fairly straightforward—a normal conditional with an "only if" keyword. The second, however, is a little more complex, as it starts with, "If, in addition, there . . . " That's setting up an AND sufficient condition—with the condition in that statement (a reasonable belief of evidence) and the condition immediately preceding it, which is that the computer is typically used in business. That's how we ended up with that second conditional.

Now your first instinct may be to chain these together—you can, but you'll find it's a meaningless chain (Used in business AND Reasonable belief of evidence → Used in business). We shouldn't be chaining principles together in Must Be True (Principle) questions anyway! Instead, we need to set the conditionals up to get the mirrored/related judgments in the necessary condition, and then find an answer that reaches one of those judgments based on the related sufficient conditions.

Here, the principles are meant to show whether unauthorized access to a computer is justified. The second principle already has that as the necessary condition, but we'll need to take the contrapositive of the first to get it ready to help us analyze answers:

not Computer typically used in business → not Justified in unauthorized access

This means, unfortunately, that we have a principle supporting both a conclusion that unauthorized access is and isn't justified, so we won't have any quick eliminations based on conclusions. But we've got our principles lined up and a firm understanding of what we're looking for, so let's head to the answers.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion here is that the unauthorized access was justified, so it's relying on the second principle. The two sufficient conditions are that the computer is typically used in business (check) and that there's a reasonable belief that the computer contained evidence for a legal proceeding (check—"Contrary to the investigators' reasonable beliefs . . . "). While the computer didn't have evidence, the principle doesn't care about the actual presence of evidence—just whether there were reasonable grounds to belief that evidence existed. This conforms to principle #2 and so it's our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Must Be True (Principle) questions typically feature two principles with matching/mirrored judgments. Get those in the necessary conditions and then compare the answers to them!

Incorrect. The conclusion in this answer is that the access was unauthorized—a conclusion that principle #1 lets us draw. However, the sufficient condition there is that the computer isn't typically used in business, but this one is, so we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that the unauthorized access was justified, so it's relying on principle #2. This answer, however, conflates the two sufficient conditions—connecting reasonable belief to used in business instead of has evidence—so it doesn't conform to that principle.

Incorrect. Principle #1 is the one that supports a conclusion that access to a computer is unjustified, but it relies on that computer typically not being used for business. So even though the file accessed here wasn't business-related, the computer itself was used in a business capacity, and so that principle doesn't apply and this conclusion isn't justified by it.