Passage Summary: Mike thinks he can use Tom's computer without asking because Tom did the same thing to someone else with a bike last week.

Conclusion: It is acceptable for Mike to use Tom's computer without asking.

Reasoning: Tom previously used Mary's bicycle without her permission.

Analysis: Mike is essentially arguing that 'turnabout is fair play.' He justifies his own behavior based on the fact that Tom has committed a similar 'infraction' against someone else. To justify this logic, we need a principle that says it's okay to ignore someone's right to permission if that person has ignored others' rights in the past. It’s a bit like saying if you don't play by the rules, the rules no longer protect you from others. Look for a principle that links a person's past behavior to how they deserve to be treated.