Explanation of 24.2.21

[New_Spice180]

Maybe it's because I've been staring at this one too long but I'm not convinced I fully understand it! The core is: if a law is if a law is ineffective then it is also unenforced, which leads to the conclusion therefore there should be no prohibition of gambling laws. Additionally, I picked A my first go around, but then changed it.

What were some of your processes to get to A? I'm curious I'm having a hard time translating how no effective law is unenforceable is extrapolated from the assumption I gave above.

[danny_columbuslsat]

The assumption that you gave isn't quite right. In order to fill in the missing gap in the argument, we must add the assumption that if a law is impossible to enforce, then it is not effective. The contrapositive of our assumption's conditional is: If a law is effective, then it is not impossible to enforce. So, answer choice (A) is another way to say the contrapositive of the assumption: No effective law is unenforceable (because if a law is effective, then it is not impossible to enforce, i.e. it is enforceable).

[Blueprint Mithun]

Maybe it's because I've been staring at this one too long but I'm not convinced I fully understand it! The core is: if a law is if a law is ineffective then it is also unenforced, which leads to the conclusion therefore there should be no prohibition of gambling laws. Additionally, I picked A my first go around, but then changed it.

What were some of your processes to get to A? I'm curious I'm having a hard time translating how no effective law is unenforceable is extrapolated from the assumption I gave above.

From the stimulus, we know that:

-these gambling prohibitions are impossible to enforce
-if a law is not effective, it shouldn't be a law

We're trying to prove that the gambling prohibitions shouldn't exist, in other words, that they shouldn't be laws. The easiest way to bridge that gap would be to say that the prohibitions are not effective, or that laws that are impossible to enforce aren't effective.

So a conditional that says: [unenforceable --> not effective] would work. We don't get that, but we do get, as danny mentioned, the contrapositive in answer choice A, which is [effective --> not unenforceable].

[New_Spice180]

The assumption that you gave isn't quite right. In order to fill in the missing gap in the argument, we must add the assumption that if a law is impossible to enforce, then it is not effective. The contrapositive of our assumption's conditional is: If a law is effective, then it is not impossible to enforce. So, answer choice (A) is another way to say the contrapositive of the assumption: No effective law is unenforceable (because if a law is effective, then it is not impossible to enforce, i.e. it is enforceable).

Wow, okay guys, I just had a conditional brain fart. Looking at this question again, it all makes sense. I'm so baffled as to how I let this one trip me up again. I'm redoing all the questions that I had trouble with in a section and this one just gave me a run for my money! Thanks for the aid guys, really helped elucidate things!