PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 12
Vague laws set vague limits on people's freedom,(23 more words not shown)
The conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- APeople can feel(12 more words not shown)
- BIf people do(15 more words not shown)
- CIf people know(11 more words not shown)
- DPeople can feel(11 more words not shown)
- EOnly people who(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A law saying 'Don't do bad things' wouldn't give much guidance. Does it ban a rude remark, or only something more serious? That's the kind of uncertainty I can picture when the passage talks about vague limits.
I'd also distinguish a vague law from a law that tells us nothing clearly. A rule might be unclear in one respect but explicitly allow driving, for example. Here, though, let's work with the premise the argument gives us: people cannot know for certain whether their actions are legal. Does that mean they cannot feel secure?
What we’re looking for
Feeling secure is the new idea. Someone might feel secure despite uncertainty about a law. To make the conclusion follow, we need to rule that possibility out: being certain whether an action is legal must be a requirement for feeling secure. Then the missing certainty would prevent the feeling the author rules out.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'Only if' makes legal certainty a requirement for feeling secure. The premise says people under these vague laws cannot have that certainty. A therefore prevents them from feeling secure, which proves the conclusion.
Be careful about what they must know: whether their actions are legal, not necessarily that all their actions are legal. The argument concerns certainty about the legal status of their actions. A connects exactly that certainty with the ability to feel secure.
- B
This is close, but it only says uncertain people might not feel secure. That leaves open the possibility that they might feel secure. The conclusion says they cannot. A rule that merely allows the conclusion to happen doesn't establish that it must happen.
- C
This gives certainty as a way to feel secure. It doesn't make certainty the only way. A person could feel secure when certain and also feel secure when uncertain; C would permit both situations. We need to rule out security without certainty, and C doesn't do that.
- D
Clear laws might allow people to feel secure, but that doesn't tell us what happens under vague laws. Perhaps people can feel secure under either kind. D describes a favorable situation without excluding the situation the conclusion says is impossible.
- E
This puts the requirement in the other direction. It says a person must feel secure in order to know for certain whether an action is legal. We need certainty to be required for security, not security to be required for certainty.
Someone could feel secure while lacking certainty without violating E. That person wouldn't meet E's description of someone who knows for certain, so its rule would leave the case open. A closes that gap by making the missing certainty a barrier to feeling secure.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.