pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question

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


Posts: 271
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

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: blackmamba8, BobBoblaw, brenna_bormann, HiLine, Lahtso Nuggin, Tazewell and 16 guests