Logical Reasoning Hypo

Answer is:

Required
0
No votes
Permitted
4
100%
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby Lawquacious » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:16 pm

(This is a hypo I have abstracted, not from an actual LSAT question, but I felt it was relevant):

Hypothetical:

Law 1 specifies that A cannot be used as a basis of enforcement of that law (Law 1), except when permitted by Law 2. Law 2 does in fact permit A to be used as a basis of enforcement for Law 1. Law 3 indicates that Law 1 "must be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law."

Q:

Is A required to be used as a basis of enforcement for Law 1, or is it rather only permitted to be used as a basis of enforcement for Law 1?

Please explain your answers.

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

Re: Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby Lawquacious » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:26 pm

Another way of phrasing the question: Does the 'maximum extent' described in Law 3=

that A may be used as enforcement basis of Law 1

or

that criterion A must be used as an enforcement basis, even where Law 1 and Law 2 only allow it to be used and don't require it.

Abazu
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:22 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby Abazu » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:17 pm

In instances where there is no other justification for the enforcement of law 1 other than "A", "A" must be used to enforce Law 1. In all other instances, "A" is merely permitted.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby Anaconda » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:23 pm

I'd say permitted. What is there that is excluding another law that punishes the offenders that is even more harsh than the first law?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby 3|ink » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:29 pm

You lost me a 'C'.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Hypo

Postby suspicious android » Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:45 pm

Trying to figure out how it could be required. I think it's easier to think about it if you reverse the order:

3. Law 1 must be enforced.
2. Action A is permissible to enforce law 1.
1. Action A cannot be used unless it is permissible. (A --> Permissible)

Since it is permissible, it can be used, but the permissibility of an action doesn't mean it is required.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests