PrepTest 149

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
G: Using someone's wifi is like listening to music someone's playing on the radio, so it's not currently illegal.

K: It requires stopping for a time, so it's loitering or harassment and thus is illegal.

Answer Anticipation:
Gerald relates using someone's wifi to listening to the radio as someone passes by, and he says that it can't be considered illegal under current law. Kendra, on the other hand, relates it to something else—loitering and harassment, which are crimes. Since they compare it to different things to reach opposite conclusions—one that it's not illegal, another that it could be considered illegal—the conclusions are likely the point at issue that will be highlighted in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
Gerald states that accessing someone's wifi "cannot be considered illegal under current laws." Kendra, on the other hand, believes that it "could be considered loitering or even harassment," both of which are crimes. This is the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
In a Point at Issue question, when two speakers are comparing one thing to two separate things (either directly or through an analogy), note the implications of the differences, as that's likely to be the correct answer.

Incorrect. Gerald doesn't believe that it can be considered trespassing, but Kendra is silent on the issue—she only likens it to loitering and harassment.

Incorrect. Neither Gerald nor Kendra discusses what should be the law, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Kendra states this, but Gerald doesn't discuss how long it takes to access someone's wifi, so it's out of scope of his argument.

Incorrect. Neither discusses intent, so this answer is out of scope. At most, we could infer that they both believe there is some intent involved, making it a point of agreement if anything.