PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 21
Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ANo effective law(2 more words not shown)
- BAll enforceable laws(2 more words not shown)
- CNo legal prohibitions(4 more words not shown)
- DMost citizens must(10 more words not shown)
- EMost citizens must(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could a law discourage gambling even if nobody can enforce it?
Someone might avoid gambling simply because it is against the law, even without expecting to be caught or punished. That possibility matters because the editor's evidence concerns enforcement, while the rule for getting rid of a law concerns effectiveness. Those aren't automatically the same thing.
My first reaction to a claim about unenforceable laws is that banning something doesn't necessarily stop people from doing it. But that doesn't settle whether the ban accomplishes anything. People still commit prohibited acts; it doesn't follow just from that fact that prohibiting them has no effect. Here the editor makes an even stronger claim—that these gambling laws are impossible to enforce—and we still need to know why that rules out any effectiveness.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion is that there should be no legal prohibition against gambling. We already have a rule saying an ineffective law shouldn't exist. To make that rule apply, we need the missing connection: a law that cannot be enforced cannot be effective. Then the gambling laws fall into the ineffective category, and the stated rule tells us to get rid of them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
“No effective law is unenforceable” rules out a law being both effective and impossible to enforce. We know the gambling prohibitions are impossible to enforce, so under A they cannot belong to the effective group.
Now use the rule already in the passage: a law that fails to be effective should not be a law. A gets us from unenforceable to ineffective, and the existing rule gets us from ineffective to the conclusion that there should be no gambling prohibition. Both steps are accounted for.
- B
This tells us that enforceable laws work. Our laws are unenforceable, and B doesn't tell us whether those work. It is consistent with B that every enforceable law is effective and that some unenforceable laws also discourage the prohibited behavior. So B leaves our original objection open: lack of enforcement hasn't been connected to lack of effectiveness.
- C
This repeats what the editor already says about gambling prohibitions. We know they cannot be enforced. Repeating that fact doesn't connect it to effectiveness, which is the condition needed to apply the rule against keeping a law.
- D
This makes public agreement a requirement for effectiveness. But we haven't established that most citizens disagree with the gambling laws. Recognizing an enforcement problem isn't the same as opposing a law. D also doesn't tell us that an unenforceable law must be ineffective. It gives us a different requirement without showing the gambling prohibitions fail it.
- E
This adds a requirement for enforceability, something we already know the gambling laws lack. It doesn't establish that they lack public agreement, and it doesn't connect either fact to ineffectiveness. The missing step is from impossible to enforce to ineffective; E never supplies it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.