PrepTest 101

[lcid:3501] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Newspaper editor: Law enforcement Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Gambling law → ~Enforceable
~Effective → ~Should be a law
Therefore - Gambling law: ~Should be a law

Answer Anticipation

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently have conditional logic, so we should be on the lookout. And while this argument isn’t as clearly conditional as many such questions are, there are conditional indicator words (“all”, “when”).
Walking through the argument, we can simplify the first sentence to our first conditional - despite the extraneous information, the logic of that statement applies to all gambling laws (sufficient condition), stating that they are impossible to enforce (necessary condition).
The second sentence starts with an aside (“notwithstanding”) before getting to the conditional - “when” (if) a law isn’t effective, then it shouldn’t be a law. We now have our second conditional premise.
From that, we get to the conclusion - there shouldn’t be gambling laws. We wrote it out in a way that matched up with our premises in our Summary.
With that noted, we can see that the conclusion lines up with the terms in the premises - those premises talk about gambling laws and what shouldn’t be law. Since the key terms in the conclusion are established in the premises, the gap in the logic must be between the two premises.
Taking a look, we can see that the first ends with ~Enforceable and the second starts with ~Effective. However, those concepts are never connected - maybe an unenforceable law can be effective. For example, it might convey that a certain behavior is “bad” and thus get people to stop doing it even without the threat of enforcement.
Since the conditional chain in the premises is missing a link, we should find an answer that brings it (or the contrapositive) up:
~Enforceable → ~Effective
Effective → Enforceable

Answer choices

  1. A
    No effective law is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Effective → Enforceable. This answer matches our anticipation, connecting our two premises. Gambling laws aren’t enforceable. This answer guarantees, then, that they’re not effective, and thus (according to the second premise) shouldn’t be a law, as the conclusion states. This answer is therefore correct.

  2. B
    All enforceable laws are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Enforceable → Effective. This answer is a reversal of the connection we need. Gambling laws aren’t enforceable, so this answer doesn’t apply to them.

  3. C
    No legal prohibitions against Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer restates the first statement in the stimulus, so it doesn’t add anything.

  4. D
    Most citizens must agree Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The stimulus doesn’t discuss citizen agreement, so this answer is out of scope.

  5. E
    Most citizens must agree Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The stimulus doesn’t discuss citizen agreement, so this answer is out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Answer Choice A 2 replies

    Started by AndrewArabie

  • Help 1 reply

    Started by Batman

View all discussions Start a discussion