Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
Posts: 44
Joined: July 22nd, 2017

Re: Q21 - Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts

by a8l367 Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:22 am

ManhattanPrepLSAT1 wrote:By definition, assumptions are unstated. So answer choice (C) is not an assumption, but rather a premise. So no, you cannot say that answer choice (C) is an assumption.

Hope that helps!

the laws are impossible to enforce (as i understant the means current (or past) laws, not every law possible ever)

No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable. (as I understand it's about all possible legal prohibitions, including those, not created yet)

Please clarify
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
Posts: 1
Joined: May 31st, 2018

Re: Q21 - Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts

by ZhaoX24 Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:02 pm

ohthatpatrick wrote:Consider any claim of the form "No A's are B".

No lions can speak English.

Shall we represent that as
If you're not a lion, then you can speak English
If you are a lion, then you can't speak English

The 2nd one is what we want. "No A's are B" = If A, then not-B

So translate (A) accordingly:
If you're an effective law, then you're not-unenforceable.
i.e. If you're an effective law, then you're enforceable.

The contrapositive of that rule would be,
If you're not-enforceable, then you're not-effective law.

According to our evidence, "when a law fails to be effective it shouldn't be a law."
If we add the rule from (A), we know that
If a law is not enforceable, it's not effective, and thus it shouldn't be a law.

We were told that gambling laws are not enforceable, so this chained together rule lets us derive that gambling laws shouldn't be laws.

Hi, My question maybe very simple but it really make me confused. I read the 'logic reasoning guide' and all the message above, I agree with the right answer. But still I am not sure how can we translate '(A) No effective law is unenforceable' into 'if a law is effective, then it must be enforceable'.

In other words, we have 'No effective law is unenforceable', so I say 'if law is not effective, then it is unenforceable'. And then I write it in conditional form like ' no effective -> unenforceable'(this can not become effective law-> enforceable law). Then I can make a valid inference by saying that 'enforceable -> effective'. Therefore, (A) doesn't seems to me to be a right answer...

Could you please help me to figure out my fault ?

Thank you
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
Posts: 1
Joined: December 05th, 2018

Re: Q21 - Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts

by MichaelaA384 Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:56 pm

I've read through all the posts/replies regarding this LR question and am still confused :?:

The gap is plain. That we need to make a connection between enforcement and effectiveness in order to justify the conclusion that there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

I've narrowed my answers down to A and B, however I'm very confused as to how those answer choices differ...

A) "no effective law is unenforceable."
Would this not be ~effective law -> ~enforceable ?
B) "all enforceable laws are effective."
Would this not be enforceable law -> effective, the contrapositive of which is ~effective ->~enforceable and therefore the same as A?

I'm assuming here that I must be diagramming something incorrectly but I am unsure where I went wrong.. Thanks for the help!!