Q12 - To qualify as an effective law

[lhermary]

Why is B wrong here? Is it backwards? If it had said Effective international law -> International police would it be right?

[giladedelman]

Right, (B) is backwards. Let's check this one out:

So we're told that to be an effective law requires an effective enforcement mechanism--in other words, effective enforcement is a NECESSARY condition for effective law--and that police forces are an example of such a mechanism. But since there's no international police force, the argument concludes that international law is not effective law.

The assumption here is pretty glaring: that an international police force is the only thing that could effectively enforce international law. What if there are other mechanisms, like, I dunno, tariffs?

So (E) is correct because it identifies this necessary assumption.

(B) is incorrect because it's saying that an international police force would be sufficient to make international law effective. This doesn't actually have to be true. We know that an enforcement mechanism is necessary, but there could be other things required to make laws effective that international law still lacks. Maybe you also need a really awesome website. So the international police force has to be necessary; it doesn't have to be sufficient.

(A) is out because whether people obey a command is actually outside the scope of the argument.

(C) is incorrect because there could be other differences between international and regular law.

(D) is incorrect because we don't care what the "primary purpose" of a police force is. We only care whether laws are effective.

Does that answer your question?

[austindyoung]

So, what threw me off for this problems is that I thought a biconditonal was set up here, in the 3rd sentence (it seems that enforcement mechanism is now being placed in the sufficient condition and effective law in the necessary).

Is that not happening? I guess we could argue it doesn't really matter because at the end, we are talking about int'l law- which is different than the possible conditional given in the 3rd sentence. I guess this would also require us to assume that int'l law is nt necessarily the same as societal law.

One last thing, I'm still confused. It seems the first sentence sets out a principle that is general and would apply to int'l law. It then seems that the last sentence is a specific example of the contra positive of that general principle.

So, since the principle is given as a premise, and the last sentence is an application, via the contrapositive, of that principle (it seems to me), I'm confused as to why it is "the only." (E) says "only" which seems like the same thing, I guess.

Seems like I'm brainfarting/ missing something obvious here.

[kyuya]

Stimulus breakdown:

effective law ---> backed up by effective enforcement mechanism

police effective enforcement? (assumption)

Then, the latter part of the stimulus goes on to state that since there is no police force for international, international law is not effective.

What does this mean, in terms of assumptions?

Well, it tells us that police forces are NECESSARY for international law to be effective - without them, they cannot be effective. There is no alternative way for international law to be effectively enforced.

Okay, with that in mind lets go to the answer choices:

(A) This is both too broad, and also not specific enough. Obeying a command is not the same as having an effective law (seems like its the jump that they are trying to make you make here). Furthermore, although police are needed (mechanisms in this case?) it never says they compel obedience. Perhaps they allow people to act in the manner they choose, but also punish them accordingly. This is a big difference; one is freedom, the other implies some sort of dictor-style force.

(B) This is a classic flaw, mixes necessary for sufficient. As discussed, police are necessary for effective law, but are they sufficient? It never states that. It says without them, law wouldn't be enforced properly. With them however, it never states that alone is enough to make a law enforced properly.

(C) the only difference? We do not know enough about international. There could be many, many differences. Do not infer from lack of info.

(D) Primary purpose? We have no idea. Perhaps their primary purpose is to stop jay walkers. We actually have no clue. BUT we do know what they are necessary for. This is a key distinction.

(E) YES this is correct. This is the assumption required for the argument, if we look back to the discussion prior to diving into the answer choices. It stated that international has no police force, therefore law cannot be effectively enforced. The implication here is that there is no other means, and this answer choices articulates that exactly.

[cacrv]

I got confused by A because if you negate it, the argument falls apart. If you negate A and assume people obey commands even without mechanisms to compel obedience, then you can no longer assume that international law is ineffective just because there is no police force.

wait, is it because international law would guide nation states, not people?

I definitely like E, but thought A was the absolute necessary choice when compared to E, after a negating test.

Thanks in advance for the help!