Summary

The author concludes that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. His support is another conditional claim: social integrity is necessary for individual freedom.
The author then makes an extra conditional claim: social integrity is also necessary for pursuing the good life. But note that pursuing the good life has no relationship to either individual freedom or the rule of law. So this claim doesn’t offer any “pathway” to the conclusion that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Since there’s no way for this claim to support the conclusion, it’s not actually a premise and we can ignore it.

Missing Connection

The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom, but the only support is that social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. We could reach the conclusion if we knew that social integrity is in turn sufficient for the rule of law.

A

There can be no rule of law without social integrity.

If the sufficient and necessary conditions here were reversed, this would be a sufficient assumption. Instead, this says that the rule of law is sufficient for social integrity. So the rule of law still isn’t necessary for individual freedom.

B

There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.

This says the rule of law is necessary for social integrity. And the argument’s premise tells us that social integrity, in turn, is necessary for individual freedom. So the conclusion follows: the rule of law is ultimately necessary for individual freedom.

C

One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law.

Pursuing the good life isn’t necessary for individual freedom. So no relationship between the good life and the rule of law can possibly lead to a conclusion about what is necessary for individual freedom.

D

Social integrity is possible only if individual freedom prevails.

This says individual freedom is necessary for social integrity. We still don’t know how the rule of law fits into the picture. Since there’s no mention of the rule of law in the argument’s support, any sufficient assumption must at least introduce the rule of law.

E

There can be no rule of law without individual freedom.

This says individual freedom is necessary for the rule of law, whereas the conclusion we’re trying to prove is the reverse: the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. (E) just scrambles the conditions in the conclusion—it doesn’t lead to that conclusion.

29 comments

The first statement of the passage tells us, translated:
NOT educated population --> economically and politically weak

Taking the contrapositive, we get:
NOT economically and politically weak --> educated population

The next statement tells us, translated:
educated population --> commit to public education

Connect the two statements up and we get:
NOT economically and politically weak --> educated population --> commit to public education

From this, we are able to validly draw the conclusion that:
NOT economically and politically weak --> commit to public education

But, of course, the invalid conclusion actually drawn is:
commit to public education --> NOT economically and politically weak

The general form of this invalid argument is as follows:
A --> B --> C
__________
C --> A

Answer choice (B) exhibits the same form.

The first statement tells us that, translated:
incapable of empathy --> not good candidates

Contraposed, it says:
good candidates --> capable of empathy

The second statement tells us that, translated:
capable of empathy --> manipulate

Connect the two statements up and we get:
good candidates --> capable of empathy --> manipulate

From this, we are able to validly draw the conclusion that:
good candidates --> manipulate

But, of course, the invalid conclusion actually drawn is:
manipulate --> good candidates

As you can see, this argument, like the one in the passage, also takes the invalid form of:
A --> B --> C
__________
C --> A

10 comments

1 comment

5 comments

8 comments

7 comments

2 comments

2 comments

20 comments

9 comments