Page 2 of 2

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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:55 am
by Oneshot06
Thanks Adam! I really appreciate the explanation.

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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:35 pm
by psalom625
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
?

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

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:21 pm
by James Finch
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!