Top Law Schools

(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.

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.

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.

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?

You lost me a 'C'.

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.