PT 40 LR 1 Q #16

lawschoolisfun2012
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:56 am

PT 40 LR 1 Q #16

Postby lawschoolisfun2012 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:57 pm

Assumption question. I got it right, but just because I was able to connect the terms that didn't link up (understanding and role in creating laws). My approach is not the best. How can you better answer this question?

User avatar
yzero1
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: PT 40 LR 1 Q #16

Postby yzero1 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:17 pm

The argument concludes that countries without free elections/free press are prone to civil disorder. This is based on the premise that these countries subject citizens to policies that they had no role in creating, and also that when people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior, they tend to engage in civil disorder.

Like you said, the key shift here is from describing a country who subjects citizens to policies that they had no role in creating to a situation where people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on them.

Try negating the correct answer (D): "People DO NOT tend NOT to understand the purpose of restrictions unless they participate in their formulation" - a bit confusing, but it translates to the inference that MOST people actually DO understand the purpose of restrictions even though they had no role in creating them. If this is the case, the conclusion does not follow from the premises because a country that controls the lives of citizens with policies that they had no role in creating can (and often) do so without creating a situation that makes people more likely to engage in civil disorder.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackmamba8, Instrumental, Pozzo, Vino.Veritas, wildquest8200, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests