Logical Reasoning Hypo Forum

[3ThrowAway99]

(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.

[3ThrowAway99]

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]

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.

[Anaconda]

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?

[3|ink]

You lost me a 'C'.

[suspicious android]

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.