#16 - Some people take their moral cues from governmental

[Charlie Melman]

Hi Jiny,

The stimulus says: Legally permissible Moral.

Answer choice (B) says: Not legally permissible Immoral.

We need an answer choice that says we can have legally permissible things that are immoral. (B) does not say this. You're right that it's a mistaken negation, but that logical flaw doesn't mean it contradicts the first statement. A contradiction happens when the premise doesn't lead to the conclusion. That's what happens in answer choice (A).

Hope this clears things up.

[PositiveThinker]

Being able to see that there is a bi conditional that exists in the stimulus is CRUCIAL.

[ashpine17]

legally permissible---> moral so we're looking for something that is legally permissible but not moral

I don't understand how A fulfilled that requirement

it says the" law doesn't cover all circumstances," so since there's no laws covering said circumstances, doesn't that mean it is not legally permissible?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ashpine,

Generally, things are legal unless they aren't. So if the law doesn't address something, it's a legal thing to do. Want to put socks on your hands and try to walk through your house on your hands instead of your feet? Legal. Want to step on every single sidewalk crack? Legal, but not nice to your mom's back. Key is that things are legal until they are made illegal. So something that isn't addressed in the law is legal. So answer choice (A) would be inconsistent. If the law doesn't address something, it's legal, and then couldn't also be immoral per the stimulus.

Hope that helps!