PT 24 LR # 1, Q 21

icobes
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:05 pm

PT 24 LR # 1, Q 21

Postby icobes » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:25 pm

Can someone please help me with this question?

Thanks.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: PT 24 LR # 1, Q 21

Postby Jack Smirks » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:26 pm

icobes wrote:Can someone please help me with this question?

Thanks.

Can you please post the question.

thegrayman
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: PT 24 LR # 1, Q 21

Postby thegrayman » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:49 pm

If you look at the stimulus, you can see that the argument never draws the link between a law being impossible to enforce and it being effective.

we know this from the stimulus:

- A flaw that is common to legal prohibitions against gambling is that they are impossible to enforce

- If a law is not effective, it should not be a law. Notice in this sentence that no mention is made of enforceability, only effectiveness.

The conclusion is that because of this, there should be no legal prohibition against gambling. The argument is missing a premise that links the enforceability of the law to it's effectiveness.

Answer choice A states:

No effective law in unenforceable, so you can diagram it:
(eff = effective law, en = enforceable)

Eff ---> En

From that, the contrapositive is then:

Not en ---> not eff

So in other words, if a law is not enforceable, then it is not effective. If you add this assumption to the argument, the conclusion follows logically.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], blackpi, dontsaywhatyoumean, jagerbom79, Majestic-12 [Bot], paragonloop, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests