LR Drill Set 4, Question 7
Laws that are unenforceable should be repealed.(20 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AAny law that(7 more words not shown)
- BOnly laws that(4 more words not shown)
- CNo law that(8 more words not shown)
- DEvery law that(8 more words not shown)
- ENo law that(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could a law do something useful even if no one could enforce it?
Maybe it expresses a community's standards, and people follow it because they agree with those standards. We can imagine conduct in a remote place where punishment is impossible, yet some people still take the rule seriously. That makes me hesitate before accepting “unenforceable, therefore repeal it.” A law might influence behavior for reasons other than fear of punishment.
The author gives us two premises: an unenforceable law carries no threat of punishment, and an ineffective law should be repealed. The missing step is whether a law without a threat of punishment must be ineffective. “Unenforceable” and “ineffective” aren't interchangeable just because they sound related.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to make the conclusion follow. A rule saying effectiveness requires enforceability would do it. So would a rule saying effectiveness requires a threat of punishment. Either route would establish that the unenforceable laws we're discussing fail a requirement for being effective. Then the stated repeal rule could apply.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Every effective law must carry a threat of punishment. The unenforceable laws carry no such threat, so they cannot be effective under this new rule. We already know ineffective laws should be repealed. Put the steps together: unenforceable means no threat; no threat means not effective; not effective means repeal. The missing connection is now in place.
- B
This says enforceable laws must be effective. We need a rule about what happens when a law is not enforceable. B leaves open an effective law that happens to be unenforceable—the very possibility raised in our objection. Requiring effectiveness for enforceability doesn't make enforceability a requirement for effectiveness.
- C
This protects laws that carry a threat of punishment from repeal. Our laws have no such threat. C says nothing about whether that other group should be repealed. A rule saying “keep these” doesn't automatically mean “repeal everything else.”
- D
We still haven't established that the unenforceable laws are ineffective. D applies to laws that have both features. Knowing one feature is not enough to put our laws into that group. Besides, the original already says ineffective laws should be repealed; adding unenforceability to the description doesn't fill the missing step.
- E
This tells us not to repeal effective laws. It doesn't identify our unenforceable laws as ineffective, and it doesn't say which laws should be repealed. The missing classification remains unresolved. A supplies it by making the threat of punishment necessary for effectiveness.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 5, Question 8Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.