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

[LawSchoolDream]

Hi Voodoo,

Yes, correct. I will note for others reading that you've presented the contrapositive of the first statement. Read as-is, I would normally diagram that as Effective Enforceable, but the contrapositive removes both negatives, which is helpful.

Thanks!

Hi, I'm a little lost with this stimulus. I was able to get NotEffective --> NotLaw and the contrapositive however I could not get from Enforcable to Effective. Can you please expand on how to get there?

And also looking at your explanation above, I see a contradiction for answer choice A. The way its notated is very different than what I learnt in the Bible, page 197 - No robot can think. R---> NotThink. canyon please explain the discrepancy?

Thank you for the response. I understand it was a response to another student but its part of the explanation for the stimulus. I'm simply trying to understand what I missed as to why I didn't get enforceable and effective in the conditional? If you could help break down my thinking pls

[Robert Carroll]

LawSchoolDream,

The statements the student asked about are not in the stimulus at all. This is a Justify question. We're trying to find an answer choice that, when added to the stimulus, makes the argument perfect.

Adam's post in this thread explains why we'd even want to add a connection between enforceability and efficacy to this argument: viewtopic.php?p=43935#p43935

Robert Carroll

[nitin254]

Sorry to bother the teachers, I have a silly question:

In diagramming option B, I am not able to follow my own logic:

Relation of the Option B with the Premises and Conclusion:

1. Authors Belief: Laws for Gambling are impossible to enforce:
2. Premise: Any law that is [enforceable] > is [effective]:
Supports that any law, as long as a law is enforced, supports the conclusion to be effective.

3. Conclusion to support is: There should not be a law for Gambling.
Option B (Contra): Not effective (sufficiency) > Conclude (law can not be enforceable)

From Premises: Not effective (sufficient) > Conclude should not be a law

4. So, is this reasoning correct?
- Option B makes "not enforceable" as a conclusion. In the argument, not enforceable is not a sufficient condition for a law to not be a law (which is the end goal here, as only triggered by not sufficient"

Hence, option B is not an answer.

Does this make sense?