LSAT 35, Logical Reasoning II, Q13, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The law against jaywalking has no purpose.

REASONING: Many people break the jaywalking law. And those who always obey the law would not cross at red lights even if there were no law. A law has no useful purpose unless it deters the behavior it prohibits. 

ANALYSIS: The argument mentions two kinds of people: those who always break the law and those who never break the law. 

The correct answer introduces a third kind of person: those who only break the law sometimes. It’s possible that the law deters them.

___________

1. The argument is talking about pedestrians. It’s irrelevant what drivers do.
2. Law is used consistently throughout. It means a legal prohibition.
3. The argument didn’t say that a law definitely would serve a useful purpose if people obeyed it because they were deterred. It just claimed that there would definitely not be a useful purpose if people didn’t obey it.
4. CORRECT. The argument ignores the middle ground between people who always jaywalk and people who never jaywalk. 
5. The argument is not talking about danger. It’s only talking about whether or not people obey the law.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---