LSAT 101 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

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.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is the contrapositive from the analysis section. It lets us connect unenforceable gambling laws to ineffective laws that shouldn’t be laws.
2. This is backwards. We know gambling laws are unenforceable. This talks about enforceable laws.
3. The editor already tells us that this is true, so it can’t help.
4. We don’t know whether citizens agree with the law, so it’s unclear what difference this makes.
5. Same as D.

Recap: The question begins with “Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Sufficient questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

Quick Jump PT Section Que