Top Law Schools

So i have a question for this. After process of elimination, i did come to the correct answer but there's something bugging me about this.

So the logic chain goes like this:

1) Increase threat of harsh punishment -> Decrease guilt

2) Increase guilt -> Decrease transgression

Conclusion: Increase severity of legal penalties (harsh punishment) -> increase ignoring welfare of others

From the explanations I've seen, they have all connected 1) and 2) like this:

3) Increase threat of harsh punishment -> Decrease guilt -> Increase Transgression
Thus answer is (ignoring welfare of others includes transgressions)

And indeed, this is what the LSAT wants you to do too. But what keeps bugging me is that I feel like we're committing a logical error her by taking the inverse of 2)

In order to get 3) we have to inverse 2) like this:

~(increase guilt) -> ~(decrease transgression) aka decrease guilt -> increase transgression

which wouldn't be logically correct right?

we can't go from A->B to ~A->~B

sanzo wrote:So i have a question for this. After process of elimination, i did come to the correct answer but there's something bugging me about this.

So the logic chain goes like this:

1) Increase threat of harsh punishment -> Decrease guilt

2) Increase guilt -> Decrease transgression

Conclusion: Increase severity of legal penalties (harsh punishment) -> increase ignoring welfare of others

From the explanations I've seen, they have all connected 1) and 2) like this:

3) Increase threat of harsh punishment -> Decrease guilt -> Increase Transgression
Thus answer is (ignoring welfare of others includes transgressions)

And indeed, this is what the LSAT wants you to do too. But what keeps bugging me is that I feel like we're committing a logical error her by taking the inverse of 2)

In order to get 3) we have to inverse 2) like this:

~(increase guilt) -> ~(decrease transgression) aka decrease guilt -> increase transgression

which wouldn't be logically correct right?

we can't go from A->B to ~A->~B

The argument says that increasing penalties for transgressions amplifies tendency to ignore welfare of others.

We know from the stim that increasing penalties for transgressions reduces guilt, and lower guilt means less likely not to transgress.

The stim nowhere mentions the welfare of others until the last line. So you need to connect transgressions with the welfare of others. Since B is the only answer that does this, it is the only one that can be correct.