PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 25
There can be no individual freedom without the(23 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- AThere can be(7 more words not shown)
- BThere can be(8 more words not shown)
- COne cannot pursue(8 more words not shown)
- DSocial integrity is(6 more words not shown)
- EThere can be(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where does the rule of law enter the reasoning?
I might question whether freedom needs law in the first place. Imagine living alone with nobody telling you what to do; that could feel like freedom. But this question asks us to make the author's conclusion follow, so we need to use the relationships the author supplies rather than debate our preferred definition of freedom.
We are told that individual freedom requires social integrity. We are also told that pursuing the good life requires social integrity. Those are two things that need the same condition. They don't tell us that social integrity requires pursuing the good life.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion says freedom requires the rule of law. Then connect freedom's existing requirement to that new one: social integrity itself must require the rule of law. If freedom needs social integrity, and social integrity needs law, freedom needs law too. That's the link I'd predict.
Working the answers
- A
This makes social integrity a requirement for the rule of law. We need the relationship in the other direction: social integrity must require law. A would let both freedom and law depend on social integrity without establishing that freedom depends on law.
- BCorrect
Social integrity cannot exist without the rule of law. We already know freedom cannot exist without social integrity. So whenever we have freedom, we must have social integrity, and that in turn requires the rule of law.
You can also see why the absence of law would rule freedom out: without law there is no social integrity under B, and without social integrity there is no individual freedom under the stated premise. That proves the conclusion.
- C
This says pursuing the good life requires the rule of law. But the conclusion concerns individual freedom. We haven't been told that having freedom means pursuing the good life, so C doesn't carry the law requirement over to freedom. Two things both needing social integrity doesn't make one require the other.
- D
This says social integrity requires individual freedom. Together with the premise, it would connect those two in both directions. But it never introduces the rule of law. The conclusion's requirement for law remains unsupported.
- E
This says the rule of law requires freedom. The conclusion says freedom requires the rule of law. Those aren't interchangeable. Under E, a society couldn't have law without freedom, but freedom without law would remain possible. That is exactly the possibility the conclusion needs to exclude.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.