Lsat question help

[anapplicant]

This has been driving me crazy. I apologize if you think it should be basic knowledge but I really can't get it.

 

Laws that are unenforceable should be repealed. After all, a law carries no threat of punishment if it is unenforceable, and clearly, ineffective laws should be repealed.

The conclusion follows the argument follows logically if which one of thr following is assumed?

A. Any law that is effective carries the threat punishment.

B. Only laws that are effective are enforceable.

C. No law that carries the threat of punishment should be repealed.

D. Every law that is both unenforceable and ineffective should be repealed..

E. No law that is effective should be repealed.

 

 

I have not gotten a hang of assumptions. Conditionals are always kicking my ass. I don't even know where to start with this. Yeah the answer is A but how.  I actually picked C and I can't even tell you how I arrived there. If you could explain, id be very grateful. Thank you.

[chaboywb]

It's been a while since I tried an LSAT question, but here is how it comes together in my head:

Conclusion: "Laws that are unenforceable should be repealed."

Fact 1: "Ineffective laws should be repealed."

Fact 2: "A law that is unenforceable carries no threat of punishment."

Answer: "Any law that is effective carries the threat of punishment." The inverse of (A) is that "any law that doesn't carry the threat of punishment is ineffective".

A law that is unenforceable carries no threat of punishment (Fact 2). Since any law that doesn't carry the threat of punishment is ineffective (Answer), a law that is unenforceable is ineffective (Inference 1).

Ineffective laws should be repealed (Fact 1). Since a law that is unenforceable is ineffective (Inference 1), a law that is unenforceable should be repealed (Conclusion). 

 

In other words, the Answer is required to reach Inference 1, which is necessary to support the Conclusion. The tricky part here is that it is the inverse of the Answer that helps us solve the problem here. It might be clearer if it was drafted as "Every law that is effective carries the threat of punishment", but that means the same thing.

[anapplicant]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. I have honestly been looking at this for a long time. 

On 10/2/2024 at 12:04 AM, chaboywb said:

It's been a while since I tried an LSAT question, but here is how it comes together in my head:

Conclusion: "Laws that are unenforceable should be repealed."

Fact 1: "Ineffective laws should be repealed."

Fact 2: "A law that is unenforceable carries no threat of punishment."

Answer: "Any law that is effective carries the threat of punishment." The inverse of (A) is that "any law that doesn't carry the threat of punishment is ineffective".

A law that is unenforceable carries no threat of punishment (Fact 2). Since any law that doesn't carry the threat of punishment is ineffective (Answer), a law that is unenforceable is ineffective (Inference 1).

Ineffective laws should be repealed (Fact 1). Since a law that is unenforceable is ineffective (Inference 1), a law that is unenforceable should be repealed (Conclusion). 

 

In other words, the Answer is required to reach Inference 1, which is necessary to support the Conclusion. The tricky part here is that it is the inverse of the Answer that helps us solve the problem here. It might be clearer if it was drafted as "Every law that is effective carries the threat of punishment", but that means the same thing.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. I have honestly been looking at this for a long time