to the top

#21 - Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well

LSAT Apprentice
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:59 pm
Points: 21

Thanks Adam! I really appreciate the explanation.
LSAT Novice
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:30 pm
Points: 4

swt2003 wrote:A. No effective law is unenforceable - This answer choice can be translated to All effective laws are enforceable. No X's are Y's is the same as All X's are NOT Y's. In this case, we are negating "unenforceable" which becomes enforceable. Then reverse and negate to get the contrapositive.

- Enforceable ----> - Effective

We can feed this into our conditional statement in the passage:

- Effective ----> - Law

we combine the two statements

By combining, we see that if a law is not enforceable then it's not effective, we know from the passage if a law is not effective it should not be a law.

Not Enforceable ----> Not Effective ------> Not Law

wouldn't it be combined as Enforceable -> Effective -> Law
James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 699

Hi P. Salom,

No, that would be the Mistaken Negation. The conditional given in the stimulus is:

Effective :arrow: Should Be Law

And we're given that gambling laws are Enforceable. So to justify the conditional reasoning we need:

Enforceable :arrow: Effective

in order to create:

Enforceable :arrow: Effective :arrow: Should Be Law

The contrapostive of that would look like:

Should Be Law :arrow: Effective :arrow: Enforceable

Hope this clears thing up!