Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 1 · Question 16

Incorrect. The motives/thought processes of those who write the laws is never discussed, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, the Jurist suggests that this isn't the case by talking about how laws "must" be viewed as based on a moral code.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about exceptions between following morality and the law, so this answer treating morality and the law as the same can't be correct.

Incorrect. The conclusion states that there are exceptions to moral prohibitions against breaking the law, suggesting that the norm is that there is such a prohibition, and so this answer is implied to be false.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Society's laws must be based on morals, since otherwise there's no reason to go with one set over another, so there must be moral exceptions to following the law.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a rare Must Be True question that features an argument. When this happens, we no longer question the conclusion—rather, we treat the entire argument as true. As such, we also need to treat all necessary assumptions as true, as if the argument itself is true, then anything necessary for it to be true and valid must be true as well.

Here, the argument talks about the relationship between morality and laws. Morals serve as the basis for laws, allowing for them to be chosen and measured. However, the conclusion is that there must be some exceptions to the "moral prohibition against the violation of these statutes." That's a complicated concept, so it's important to figure it out in order to see if there are any necessary assumptions in here.

Swapping out some of the language here for more basic language, we can rephrase "moral prohibition" as something being wrong. What is that thing? A "violation of statutes"—i.e., breaking the law. So the conclusion, rephrased, is: There must be some times when it's not wrong to break the law.

In order for that to be true, there must be times when the law and the morality it's based on don't align. That's a necessary assumption for this question, and so there's a good chance it'll be correct in this rare, argument-based Must Be True question.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is a necessary assumption to reach the conclusion that there must be exceptions to any moral prohibition against breaking the law. For there to be exceptions, it must be the case that morality and the law are sometimes conflicting.

Key Takeaway:
Most Must Be True questions won't feature arguments. When they do, treat every statement—including the conclusion—as true. And since necessary assumptions are things that must be true for the conclusion to be true, necessary assumptions can serve as correct answers to argument-based Must Be True questions.