Help out with this logic! Forum

[roranoa]

[*] If [strike]wrong to restrict rights[/strike] --> acting upon rights harm each other


If you put this into a real sentence is it:

If it is not wrong for the government to restrict rights, then acting blah blah?

or If it is wrong for the government not to restrict rights, then acting blah blah?


For some reason that seems to matter......or.... does it not?

[dynomite]

If you put this into a real sentence is it:

If it is not wrong for the government to restrict rights, then acting blah blah?

It's that one ^

Remember, we're still talking about just governments here. So what is that sentence saying? Nothing very lofty:

1) The only time when it's kosher for a gov't to mess with our rights is when we're going to hurt other peeps, so

2) If there's a gov't that's messing with our rights and you know it's not wrong for them to do so, then we must have been fixing to hurt other peeps.

Maybe it would help to think of this as it would apply in the real world? If the gov't is messing with our rights, and it's kosher, then we must have been fixing to hurt each other. So, let's say the gov't stepped in to mess with my rights.

If they did it to stop me from watching TV, that's not kosher (no one's gonna get hurt if I'm sitting on my couch eating Pringles and watching Family Guy)

If they did it to stop me from pouring Clorox into a city water supply, well, that's a different story.

[trutherd]

SO: Agree to disagree on the definition, but I still say every time you stray from the "not" statements on the LSAT you're unsafe... because you're dangerous.

First and foremost, I love the way you worked a solid Top Gun reference in here (they're just always fantastically appropriate with the LSAT...)

I agree that we've started debating the semantics to a level that isn't likely to be all that LSAT relevant. I also agree completely that it's very easy to transform the meaning if/when you stray from strict "not statements." However, I also think it is warranted here because unjust is used in the answers (but then of course we're back to a definitional argument...)

BUT, there's a way to look at this without even having to consider the relation between just/unjust... (why couldn't I have thought of this first?? )

The prompt gives us a necessary condition for a just government (not restricting), which makes "just government" the sufficient condition. Therefore, when we take the contrapositive, "not-just" or "unjust government" can only be the necessary condition. So, regardless of the content (unjust, not-just, etc), the negation of just cannot be used as a sufficient condition for anything. The two answers that use unjust here use it as a sufficient condition so they can be ruled out immediately. (I think this is what the LRB calls "mistaken negation" or something... can anyone verify?)

And finally,

this thread is an indication of why the LSAT is a cruel and brutal exam. lawyers, by their very nature, spend long hours pouring over research to develop precedent and argument. during the course of such analysis they no doubt have to infer logical structure as has been demonstrated here.

prospective law students have to do it 24-26 times in 35 minutes.

TITCR. Amen brother!

[trutherd]

If you say: It is wrong for a government to restrict citizens their rights unless acting upon their rights harm each other.

[*] It is wrong for a government to restrict citizens their rights if not acting upon their rights harm each other.

[*] if not acting upon their rights harm each other, it is wrong for a government to restrict citizens their rights

[*] If [strike]acting upon rights harm each other[/strike] --> wrong to restrict rights

If it is not wrong for the government to restrict rights, then acting blah blah?

2) If there's a gov't that's messing with our rights and you know it's not wrong for them to do so, then we must have been fixing to hurt other peeps.

I have to say... After ALL of our discussion on the danger of transforming words centered around the transformation of "just" to "unjust," using the word "wrong" here seems like a much bigger leap...