Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. This is a very tempting answer. However, the argument doesn't conclude that society can avoid chaos by punishing all violations. It simply recommends against allowing such transgressions to be committed with impunity because they'd lead to chaos. In short, it recommends against one course of action that could lead to chaos, but it makes no claims that this completely solves the problem. Only if it did that would this answer be correct.

Incorrect. This answer is suggesting that the rules don't actually solve a problem—those problems wouldn't exist even without the rules. However, the issue isn't the problems that the rules are meant to address, but rather the message sent by failing to enforce laws, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the subset of rules that the premise mentions (explicit rules), so there's no such shift/generalization.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Violations of a society's explicit rules routinely unpunished → People lack moral guidance
People lack moral guidance → Chaos
Therefore — Society shouldn't ever let an explicit rule go unpunished

Answer Anticipation:
There are three features in this argument that suggest specific flaws, so we should dive into each one to see if the flaw is present.

First, the premises are conditional (the second is a bit conditional and a bit causal, but that still means that it's conditional). When that happens, we should check to see if there's an illegal reversal/negation, or if the argument invalidly applies the conditionals to a specific situation (generally by failing to establish the presence of the sufficient condition). Here, the conditionals chain together just fine, and the conclusion doesn't reverse or negate that chain. Additionally, it doesn't apply it to a specific situation, instead recommending that a sufficient condition that will result in chaos be avoided.

Second, the conclusion is a recommendation—ought." When that's the case, the argument will frequently fail to establish the criteria by which a recommendation can be made, or fail to consider all things relevant to that judgment. While this argument doesn't explicitly do so, it does establish that doing something will result in chaos. By definition, chaos is something to be avoided, especially by a society. So something that will result in chaos should be avoided, and thus there isn't a flaw here.

Finally, the conclusion includes a very strong word—"never." Does the stimulus back that up? Nope—what should be avoided is the "routine" lack of punishment for the violation of a law. A law can go unpunished once or twice while still being routinely enforced if all other violations of it are punished. That shift in degree is the flaw in this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the degree shift between a premise about "routinely" failing to punish a crime, and occasionally failing to punish a crime ("ought never to allow"), so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The words "never" and "always" in a conclusion are almost always indicative of a degree shift flaw—the premise(s) is almost always too weak to support such a strong conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument establishes that the routine non—punishment of any crime will result in chaos, so this answer is arguably saying the argument assumes something (takes for granted") that it explicitly establishes.