Type 1 must be true June 91 LR2 #21 HELP

pearla
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:56 am

Type 1 must be true June 91 LR2 #21 HELP

Postby pearla » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:54 pm

can anyone explain or help diagram this?
A society in which there are many crimes should not be called lawless...
thanks :D

cgw
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: Type 1 must be true June 91 LR2 #21 HELP

Postby cgw » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:01 pm

pearla wrote:can anyone explain or help diagram this?
A society in which there are many crimes should not be called lawless...
thanks :D


The stimulus is arguing semantics. Specifically the definition of "lawless." Understanding the stimulus' definition is all you really need to answer the question. Lawless = no laws. In order for crime to exist, there must be laws for people to break. So, Crime --> Laws. ~Laws --> ~Crime

A. Laws --> Crime. Mistaken reversal. This is not discussed. It could be possible for a society to have laws that are not broken.
B. ~Crimes --> ~Laws This is the contrapositive of the above, so still wrong.
C. Many Laws --> Many Crimes. This is actually saying the same as the above with a "many" qualifier. The stimulus gives no indication that there is a correlation between the number of laws and the number of crimes. There could be a few laws that everyone breaks or hundreds that are rarely broken.
D. Some Crimes --> Some Laws. This matches the diagram from the stimulus with crime as SC and law as the NC. The use of the word "some" is also an indicator this is tcr.
E. Many Crimes --> Many Laws See choose C. Again, there is no correlation to support the "many" qualifier.

Must Be Trues are one of my least fav LR types, but I've found it helps to write out ques explanations, even when I get them right.

pearla
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Type 1 must be true June 91 LR2 #21 HELP

Postby pearla » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:36 pm

I am officially following you! [Read THANKS :lol: ]

cgw wrote:
pearla wrote:can anyone explain or help diagram this?
A society in which there are many crimes should not be called lawless...
thanks :D


The stimulus is arguing semantics. Specifically the definition of "lawless." Understanding the stimulus' definition is all you really need to answer the question. Lawless = no laws. In order for crime to exist, there must be laws for people to break. So, Crime --> Laws. ~Laws --> ~Crime

A. Laws --> Crime. Mistaken reversal. This is not discussed. It could be possible for a society to have laws that are not broken.
B. ~Crimes --> ~Laws This is the contrapositive of the above, so still wrong.
C. Many Laws --> Many Crimes. This is actually saying the same as the above with a "many" qualifier. The stimulus gives no indication that there is a correlation between the number of laws and the number of crimes. There could be a few laws that everyone breaks or hundreds that are rarely broken.
D. Some Crimes --> Some Laws. This matches the diagram from the stimulus with crime as SC and law as the NC. The use of the word "some" is also an indicator this is tcr.
E. Many Crimes --> Many Laws See choose C. Again, there is no correlation to support the "many" qualifier.

Must Be Trues are one of my least fav LR types, but I've found it helps to write out ques explanations, even when I get them right.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, brinicolec, cianchetta0, Google [Bot], mrgstephe, okachobee, Pozzo, Sprout, wildquest8200 and 9 guests