Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. The argument assumes that there is overlap between the codes, just not complete overlap. Since the argument suggests that one cannot violate national codes without also violating local ones, there must be overlap.

Incorrect. The argument suggests that there's overlap between the codes, and that violation of the national codes guarantees a violation of the local ones, but that has to do with overlap, not strictness. Codes could be more or less strict while addressing different areas of buildings.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Defendant - I didn't know if local or national laws applied, which is why I didn't follow the right laws, so I shouldn't be penalized.

Judge - I'd buy it if you violated local codes, but you violated national codes, so your excuse doesn't hold water.

Answer Anticipation:
We're looking to justify the Judge's reasoning, so we've got to make sense of why she thinks that the issue of being unsure of whether local or national codes applied would only be a defense against violating local codes, not national ones.

So let's break it down. The Judge would buy the defense of not knowing which codes applied in the case of violating local laws. If that were the case, then the defendant would be claiming that he thought national codes applied and followed them, but broke local codes in the process. So it's possible to violate local codes but not national ones.

Then, in order for the defense to not make sense in the case of violation of national codes (which is what the actual charge is), the opposite must be true. It must not be possible to violate the national codes but not the local ones. If that's the case, then someone accused of violating the national codes would also necessarily have violated the local ones, and thus not knowing which apply wouldn't serve as a defense. Let's find an answer making that connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the overlap that must be true for the defense to make sense in the context of violation of local laws but not national ones. If everything required by national codes is required by local codes, then being accused of violating national codes would also mean you were accused of violating the local ones. Therefore, saying that you weren't sure which applied doesn't serve as a valid defense.

Key Takeaway:
This is a complex question, but you can get to the answer by working through the described scenarios. Figuring out why the Judge thought the defense worked in one case but not another was key here, so walk yourself through those scenarios to see why that's the case.

Incorrect. The defendant doesn't claim to be ignorant as to the differences between the laws but rather which one applied.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about behavior that isn't in compliance with a law, so this answer's focus on behavior that is in compliance is out of scope.