来看看这道题目！

cathycathyhan

题目很短，但是逻辑性很强。
Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.
Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that
(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another
(B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable
(C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally
(D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws
(E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy

sdcar2010

A for sure since A) equals "something that is legally permissible could be immoral."

cathycathyhan

A for sure since A) equals "something that is legally permissible could be immoral."

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/11 11:38:17)

Sorry, I don't understand your logical way. It seems so simple! This question looks short but has strong logic.

fjatpku

sdcar2010 is right.
a hidden premise: anything not covered by law is legally permissible

屡败屡战

好像是91还是92年的题，有印象，好像当时做错了

cathycathyhan

sdcar2010 is right.
a hidden premise: anything not covered by law is legally permissible

-- by 会员 fjatpku (2011/8/11 13:13:41)

隐含的，这个隐含的也要自己分析出来的，那第一句等于白说了？而且A-E答案中也有绕的，你怎么不知道别的选项是正确的呢？
Statement 1: From Govt law > Moral cues
So, its reverse negation will also be correct: ~(Moral cues) > ~(From Govt law)

Statement 2: Unimaginable (inconsistent) legally permissible > Immoral (not moral cues)

From Statement 1, we can say that:
Inconsistent legally permissible > not moral cues > ~(From Govt law)

fjatpku

"anything not covered by law is legally permissible"    
IMO this is common sense. LSAT does require you to know some common sense.
And your analysis to statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is a statement of fact.
If you really want to analyze this statement in the "logical way", it should be:
some people ==> they take their moral cues from governmental codes of law
the reverse negation is: they take their moral cues from governmental codes of law  ====> they are not "some people"

cathycathyhan

Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.
This sentence uses ; as a stop sign. It means the first statement and the second statement share the equal right. I don't think the first statement is useless in this argument. What you said about common sense, I found it funny. The test-maker of LSAT seldom would like people to know about common sense. LSAT is a standard test which means you could come different background including non-legal people. How could these people know about these common sense?
Plus, this anylysis way is not run by me. It came from one of my American friend. I think it is sound. That's it!
And your negating way of statement 1, I don't agree. Some people here reflects Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs in the question. Which rule of negating? Common sense doesnot make any sense.

fjatpku

Is your American friend a law student?
I scored 170+ in this test, and your friend's analysis seems inconsistent with my mind.

cathycathyhan

She is the law student in columbia university. Which law school do you belong to?