#14 - Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without

[sunshine123]

Hello,

I have a general question about multiple-speaker problems like this one that I would greatly appreciate having answered. When the second speaker says something bare like, "I disagree." as in this case, does that mean/ can we infer, based on that statement alone, that they disagree with the conclusion of the first speaker?

Best,
Sunshine

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Generally, yes, Sunshine. However, be careful that there's no other context for the disagreement statement. It's possible that there could be further information in the statement that would contextualize the disagreement as a disagreement with a fact or assumption of the first speaker.

Good question!

[AnaSol]

Hi,

I'm very confused by this question.

Where is the flaw precisely? That Arjun said 'could'? If Arjun had responded something like: "I disagree! For example, a local hospital had an unauthorized use of medical records systems , which damaged data systems on which human lives depended, and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

Or something to that effect, where something did happen vs that it could have happened, would that eliminate the flaw?

Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi AnaSol,

That's exactly right!

In Arjun's premise, all that is stated is that medical records in hospitals could be damaged, which could harm human lives. Arjun's conclusion shifts from "could" to "does." By saying "computer crimes also cause physical harm," Arjun is saying that this has in fact occurred, not just that it is theoretically possible.

The shift in language between premises and conclusion is a common problem in LR arguments. Sometimes it's a shift in certainty (what's possible, what's likely, what's certain), other times it may be quantity (some, most, all), other times it shifts in tense (past, present, future).

Your example is almost correct, but it would not only need to show that there was a data breach at a hospital, but that a patient was actually harmed because of the breach (such as getting the wrong medication that harmed the patient due to the data breach). If this kind of incident had been shown, then the conclusion would be properly supported.

[dshen123]

Hi Abby!

Yolanda's conclusion is that joyriding is more dangerous but she also says that only intellectual property is harmed in the case of computer crimes. So she is not saying that both of them harm people and joyriding is just more dangerous. She argues that computer crimes do not harm people. So Arjun is not failing to understand Yolanda's argument. He is taking issue with the very last part of her argument about only intellectual property being harmed in the case of computer crimes.

The distinction in Yolanda's argument is that joyriding is more dangerous because it harms people and that computer crimes harm only intellectual property. She's making a distinction between joyriding and computer crimes based on who/what they harm. Arjun does not fail to maintain that distinction. He just disagrees with that distinction because he thinks that computer crimes can also harm people. Attacking the distinction is not "failing to maintain it" and it is also not a flaw. If his point is that her distinction is incorrect, that's fine. But he needs to provide proper support to prove his claim that her distinction is incorrect.

Flaws always come down to the specific conclusion that is being made and the specific premises that are being used to support that conclusion. Ask yourself: 1) What is the conclusion?; 2) What are the premises?; and 3) Why don't the premises given fully prove the conclusion as stated? Arjun's conclusion is "computer crimes also cause physical harm to people" but his premise is just that it is possible for computer crimes to cause harm to people. He has not proven that they actually do cause harm to people.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

I thought Arjun says, that they both cause physical injuries thus blurring the distinction (fail to acknowledge distinction)? what will the stem look like if Arjun "failed to make the distinction"?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi dshen,

"Failing to maintain a distinction" as described in Answer A would likely refer to a situation in which Arjun ignored the distinction that Yolanda made (between unauthorized use of computers and joyriding) and then proceeded to make an argument assuming that the two things were not distinct without providing support for this. For example, if Arjun had argued, "Because authorized use of computers and joyriding both involve invading private property, the punishment for each of these crimes should be identical," Arjun would be failing to consider an important difference between these crimes that Yolanda made, which could be described as "failing to maintain a distinction." In this example, differences in how much harm each crime causes and what type of harm occurs would be relevant factors in determining punishment.

Of course, Arjun does not ignore or fail to consider the distinction that Yolanda made but actively addresses her distinction by disagreeing with it. The flaw in Arjun's argument is that he does not provide actual evidence that unauthorized use of computers has actually caused physical harm to people.