PrepTest 122, Section 1, Question 22
If violations of any of a society's explicit(45 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(19 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(21 more words not shown)
- Cinfers, from the(22 more words not shown)
- Dconfuses the routine(14 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Let's accept the chain the author gives us: routinely leaving violations unpunished leads to a lack of moral guidance, which leads to chaos. We might question that story in real life, but here it is the starting evidence.
The conclusion says society should never let an explicit rule be broken “with impunity,” meaning without punishment. Is that the same thing the opening rule was talking about? I want to check the change in wording before accepting such a sweeping recommendation.
There's also a value judgment: the author treats chaos as something society should avoid. That may seem obvious, but explaining that an action produces chaos and saying society ought not to take that action are still different steps.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, those are the concerns I'd carry into the answers: does the recommendation go beyond the original warning, and what connects the predicted result to what society should do? We need a description of a mistake this argument actually makes.
Working the answers
- A
The argument gives one route to chaos. It doesn't say eliminating that route guarantees a society free of chaos. Other causes could remain. A describes the mistake of treating punishment as a complete safeguard, but the author never promises that it will solve every possible source of disorder.
- B
Why the rules were originally created doesn't resolve our objection. Even if a particular rule is unnecessary for its original purpose, the author has supplied a separate claim about what routinely failing to enforce explicit rules does to moral guidance. B doesn't explain the jump from that claim to the absolute recommendation.
- C
Both the opening premise and the conclusion cover any of society's explicit rules. The author doesn't start with a limited selection of rules and then expand to every rule. The important change concerns how often violations go unpunished, not which rules count.
- DCorrect
Here is the precise change in wording: “routinely” becomes “never.” The evidence concerns a pattern of letting violations go unpunished; the conclusion forbids even an occasional exception.
A society could generally enforce its rules while sometimes making an exception. The opening premise doesn't tell us that this occasional nonpunishment would remove moral guidance and produce chaos. The conclusion needs that extra connection to justify saying society should never allow it. We don't need a numerical definition of “routinely” to see that it differs from a single exception.
- E
The author doesn't have to think every violation has equally serious consequences. Murder and a minor speeding offense could differ enormously while the author still worried about a general practice of failing to enforce explicit rules. E adds a comparison of severity that the argument never relies on.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.