LSAT-21-2-21

valarie

21.     Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw: no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective, it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) No effective law is unenforceable.

(B) All enforceable laws are effective.

(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable.

(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective.（A）

(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable.

谁能给我讲讲这个题的推理？我怎么觉得A 和C 差不多啊？Thanks．

lawyer_1

原文的GAP是 impossible to enforce和fails to be effective。

valarie

那C 呢？ 将C 取非，some legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable，不就消弱结论么？

lawyer_1

1。原文结论是there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.你的取非some legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable对结论不起作用，再说，若如你所说是“消弱结”，也不是假设，必须是结论不能成立才能是假设。

Bensontuo

valarie 发表于 2004-8-18 02:36
21.     Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, hav ...

Spot the question type: Sufficient assumption

Core of the argument:

If laws are impossible to enforce, it must fail to be effective. If it failed to be effective, it must not be a law. If it must not be a law, there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

No enforce ---> No effective, So Effective ---> Enforce.

Let us see the answer.

A. Effective ---> No unenforceable ( Correct answer )

B. Enforce ---> Effective ( Mistaken reverse )

C. Legal prohibition against gambling ---> no enforceable  ( Mistaken reverse )

D. No necessarily needed to be true

E. the same with D.