Information sciences expert: Social networking Web sites - sites that provide online services that allow individuals to share personal information...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Logically Completes

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Information sciences expert: Social networking Web sites - sites that provide online services that allow individuals to share personal information with each other - are vulnerable to being ordered offline in the event that one of their subscriber users information obtained from the site to commit a crime against another subscriber. If criminal investigators can convince the court that the Web site involved is part of the crime scene and therefore must not be tampered with, then the courts would have to order the site offline, because ______________.

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

the courts have power to shut down the web site

the privacy practices of the Web site involved would have been shown to be insufficient to protect its subscribers

the Web site involved may provide investigators with clues valuable for solving and prosecuting the case

any additional use of the Web site could constitute tampering

tampering with crime scenes interferes with due process of law

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Social networking Web sites - sites that provide online services that allow individuals to share personal information with each other - are vulnerable to being ordered offline in the event that one of their subscriber users information obtained from the site to commit a crime against another subscriber.	What it says: Social networking sites can be shut down if someone uses info from the site to commit crimes against other users What it does: Sets up a specific vulnerability scenario for social media platforms What it is: Information sciences expert's opening claim
If criminal investigators can convince the court that the Web site involved is part of the crime scene and therefore must not be tampered with, then the courts would have to order the site offline, because ____________.	What it says: Courts would shut down sites if investigators prove the site is part of the crime scene and can't be tampered with What it does: Builds on the vulnerability claim by explaining the legal mechanism that would force shutdown What it is: Expert's conditional reasoning with missing conclusion

Argument Flow:

The expert starts with a broad claim about social networking sites being vulnerable to shutdown, then narrows down to explain the specific legal mechanism that would trigger this shutdown - when investigators convince courts the site is part of a crime scene.

Main Conclusion:

There is no stated conclusion - we need to complete the argument with the reason why courts would be forced to order sites offline when they're considered part of a crime scene.

Logical Structure:

This is an incomplete conditional argument. We have the 'if' part (investigators convince court the site is part of crime scene) and the 'then' part (courts order site offline), but we're missing the 'because' part that explains the logical or legal principle forcing this outcome.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Logically Completes - We need to find the missing piece that explains WHY courts would have to order the site offline if it's deemed part of a crime scene that can't be tampered with.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about conditions (if investigators convince courts the site is part of crime scene AND must not be tampered with) leading to a necessary outcome (courts ordering site offline). We need the logical principle that bridges this gap.

Strategy

For logically completes questions, we need to find what missing information would make the argument's logic flow smoothly from premises to conclusion. The expert is explaining a legal/procedural principle - if something is a crime scene that can't be tampered with, then courts must order it offline. We need the underlying rule or principle that would force this outcome.

Answer Choices Explained

the courts have power to shut down the web site

This doesn't complete the logical reasoning. The argument isn't questioning whether courts have the authority to shut down websites - it's explaining WHY they would be forced to do so in this specific scenario. Having power to do something doesn't explain why they must do it.

the privacy practices of the Web site involved would have been shown to be insufficient to protect its subscribers

This focuses on privacy practices, but the argument is about crime scene preservation, not privacy failures. The reasoning chain is about tampering with evidence, not inadequate privacy protections.

the Web site involved may provide investigators with clues valuable for solving and prosecuting the case

This suggests keeping the site available for investigation, which contradicts the conclusion that courts would order it offline. If the site provides valuable clues, investigators would want it running, not shut down.

any additional use of the Web site could constitute tampering

This perfectly completes the logical chain. If the site is part of a crime scene that must not be tampered with (given condition), and any continued use would constitute tampering (this choice), then courts must order it offline to prevent tampering. This creates the necessary logical bridge.

tampering with crime scenes interferes with due process of law

While this is a true legal principle, it doesn't specifically explain why the website must be ordered offline. We already know from the passage that tampering must be prevented - we need to know why continued operation equals tampering.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...