LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 21

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 21

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:36

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q21
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
67%
170
B
11%
162
C
19%
163
D
2%
160
E
1%
149
155
162
169
 +Hardest 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

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.

Summary
The conclusion is that there shouldn’t be a legal prohibition against gambling. This is based on the following:
Gambling laws can’t be enforced.
If a law is not effective, it should not be a law.

Missing Connection
The second premise (if a law is not effective, it should not be a law) gives us a way to prove that something should be a law. So if we can learn that gambling laws aren’t effective, we can prove that they shouldn’t be laws. The first premise establishes that gambling laws can’t be enforced. There’s a missing link between “can’t be enforced” and “not effective.” We should go to the answer looking for “If a law can’t be enforced, then it’s not effective.” Or, the contrapositive: “If a law is effective, it has to be enforceable.”

A
No effective law is unenforceable.
This establishes that if a law is effective, it must NOT be UNenforceable. Take away the double negative and this means, if a law is effective it must be enforceable. This establishes that since gambling laws aren’t enforceable, they cannot be effective.
B
All enforceable laws are effective.
This means that if a law is enforceable, it’s effective. This reverses what we’re looking for. (B) doesn’t prove that if a law isn’t enforceable, it can’t be effective. In other words, (B) still allows for gambling laws to be effective, even though they’re not enforceable.
C
No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable.
A premise already establishes that gambling prohibitions are not enforceable. (C) doesn’t establish that the gambling prohibitions are not EFFECTIVE. There’s a difference between “not enforceable” and “not effective.”
D
Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective.
The premises don’t give us enough to establish that most citizens don’t agree with gambling laws; so (D) doesn’t establish that gambling laws aren’t effective. We know that most citizens recognize that they’re not enforceable, but this doesn’t imply that they don’t agree with the laws.
E
Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable.
The premises already establish that gambling laws are not enforceable. (E) doesn’t establish that the laws are not EFFECTIVE. There’s a difference between “not enforceable” and “not effective.”

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply