Logical Reasoning Hypo

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

Answer is:

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

User avatar
Lawquacious

Gold
Posts: 2028
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

Gold
Posts: 2028
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

New
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

Silver
Posts: 605
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

Platinum
Posts: 7391
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

Silver
Posts: 919
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 5 guests