pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
myfriendtoldmeimkeen

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:26 pm

pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question

Postby myfriendtoldmeimkeen » Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:30 pm

Is this correst?

Legal--> not immoral

immoral--> not legal


THNAKS!

Shrimps

Bronze
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question

Postby Shrimps » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:12 pm

Don't get to stuck up on moral logic.

The argument is straightforward: nothing that the law permits is immoral

(A) violates this right away: some lawful actions are immoral.
(B) is irrelevant (it would be a flaw if it were a logical deduction - denying the antecedent, blah blah - but it's not a logical deduction. It's a standalone statement which does not violate the original argument).
(C) irrelevant
(D) adds support to the argument
(E) irrelevant

sytycd

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question

Postby sytycd » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:02 am

Sorry to be a little late to the conversation, but I was wondering how you interpreted "law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another" to mean "some lawful actions are moral"? I kept reading this as "there are some moral actions that the law does not deem permissible or impermissible," which I thought could be consistent with the statement that "the law does not permit anything that is immoral." Thanks in advance!



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests