QUESTION TEXT: Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t ban gambling.
REASONING: We can’t enforce gambling laws. If a law isn’t effective, then it shouldn’t be a law.
ANALYSIS: A law can be effective even if it’s impossible to enforce. Almost everyone wears seat-belts, even though it’s very tough to enforce that law at all times.
You can diagram the two premises:
Gambling law ➞ not enforceable
not effective ➞ should not be a law
We need to connect “gambling law” to the conclusion (“should not be a law”). We can do that by saying that if you’re not enforceable, you’re not an effective law. We get:
Gambling law ➞ not enforceable ➞ not effective
➞ should not be a law
The contrapositive is also a possible correct answer:
effective law ➞ enforceable law
(to get the contrapositive, reverse the terms, and negate them)
Note: when you draw this, you should turn the words into 1-2 letters. I’m only using full words so it’s clear what I’m referring to.
___________
- CORRECT. This is the contrapositive from the analysis section. It lets us connect unenforceable gambling laws to ineffective laws that shouldn’t be laws.
- This is backwards. We know gambling laws are unenforceable. This talks about enforceable laws.
- The editor already tells us that this is true, so it can’t help.
- We don’t know whether citizens agree with the law, so it’s unclear what difference this makes.
- Same as D.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply