Q12 - Vague laws set vague limits

[jenndg100380]

I ended up getting this question correct, but I typically have problems with these types of questions. So, I was hoping someone could walk me through their reasoning. When I see arguments like these, I'm not sure if we are supposed to diagram them out or do we just work through it by finding the missing link/assumption (ie. the missing link between the uncertainty of whether or not one's actions are legal to not feeling secure.)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So the answer to your question depends on whether you can see the missing link without putting the argument into formal notation. Personally, I can usually establish which terms are involved in the gap, but without diagramming the problem, I would get caught up on answer choices that reflect reversals and negations.

VLaws ---> VLimits
VLimits ---> ~KAL
============
VLaws ----> ~FS

(Notation Key: VLaws = vague laws, VLimits = vague limits, KAL = know whether action is legal, FS = feel secure)

The gap here is

~KAL ---> ~FS

If we take the contrapositive

FS ---> KAL

And interpreted back into English this would read, if someone can feel secure, they must know whether their actions are legal. Best expressed in answer choice (A).

(B) is not strong enough. "Might" simply won't allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.
(C) is the reversal of the correct assumption.
(D) relates two terms that do not need to be bridged.
(E) is the reversal of the correct assumption.

Tricky I know. I would suggest that you attempt these question without diagramming first. If you can't see the right answer at that point or are torn between two answer choices, then put things into formal notation to help you see the nature of the relationships implied!

Good luck!

[jenndg100380]

THANKS SO MUCH! This REALLY helps.

[LSAT on Brain]

I am struggling with the same issue. I realize that when I diagram it, it comes out different BUT I do not see the difference in logic between the two.

A - Feeling secure depends on knowing actions are legal

and

C - Knowing actions are legal then you can feel secure

seems similar.

It seems that if you don't know your actions are legal then you wont feel secure - which is the same as FS - KAL

Please explain!

I revisited and am thinking that in C it would be possible to feel secure even if you don't know if AL and KAL is only one way to FS.

A on the other hand is saying the only way to feel secure is if KAL.

Am I right?

[timmydoeslsat]

I am struggling with the same issue. I realize that when I diagram it, it comes out different BUT I do not see the difference in logic between the two.

A - Feeling secure depends on knowing actions are legal

and

C - Knowing actions are legal then you can feel secure

seems similar.

With answer choice C, we are given one way to reach the idea that one can feel secure. Another way would be, for me at least, is walking down the street with Ray Lewis and Julius Peppers.

Our argument is this:

Vlaws ---> V limits PF ---> ~KAL
__________________________
Vlaws ---> ~FS

So we immediately see that our logic chain in evidence stops at ~KAL yet our author concludes ~FS. One way to make this argument vaid is to plug in the idea that [~KAL ---> ~FS].

It seems that if you don't know your actions are legal then you wont feel secure - which is the same as FS - KAL

Please explain!

(A) is giving us a necessary condition of FS.

(C) is telling us one way to get to the idea of FS.

[samuelfbaron]

I got this question right, but just to clarify with answer (A) :

Does the the "only if" imply a necessary condition? As well does that "only if" match the tone of the stimulus "cannot" from "cannot feel secure" ?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I got this question right, but just to clarify with answer (A) :

Does the the "only if" imply a necessary condition? As well does that "only if" match the tone of the stimulus "cannot" from "cannot feel secure" ?

Thanks!

"only if" does introduce a necessary condition. In the stimulus, cannot implies the negation of a term. The conditional statement in the conclusion does not really have a trigger word, but the conditional is clear: if you have vague laws, then people cannot feel secure.

Hope that helps!

[woof90]

Many thanks for all the explanations so far. My issue is in correctly translating the conditionals formally. Let me explain.

The reason why I eliminated (A) (though I should've kept it as a contender) is because of the following error it seems to commit.

The gap I see in the stimulus:
"If it is impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal, then people cannot feel secure"
(contrapositive = "If people can feel secure, it is possible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal"

What (A) says:
"If people can feel secure, they know for certain whether their actions are legal."

The problem I see with (A) is that it fails to say "... it is possible that they know for certain whether their actions are legal". I feel like you can't just take away this element. After all, "it is possible that X" is not logically equivalent to "X", if you understand my meaning.

Unfortunately, above explanations elude this part of this question. I understand this may seem very minor, but I appreciate any insights you may have on this!

[Joetrot88]

I dont understand something with Sufficient Assumption questions..

If V-> ~KAL
and the conclusion is V->~FS

How do you know the assumption is ~KAL -> ~FS and not ~FS -> ~KAL

As I remember if A->B and A->C then that means B some C...

How do you know which way the arrows point(or which is a sufficient and necessary) in a question like this?

My misunderstanding cost me this questions as I answered A.

thank you

[zen]

Hey guys,

Here's a little breakdown without bothering with conditional logic.

Wrong answers:

(B)- The conclusion to the stimulus says "they CANNOT feel secure"; this answer choice only says they "might not feel secure". This is WAY too weak and doesn't give us the strength of what we need to conclude.

(C)- We are talking about people who don't know if their actions are legal! How does that make them feel? So if you look at the stim and we negate the necessary condition of the chain from "impossible to know" to "possible to know" then we have in turn negated "vague limits on peoples freedom" to "not vague limits on people's freedom", which then lets us negate "vague laws" to "unvague laws"! If we apply this to the conclusion, it only allows us to negate the sufficient condition of the conclusion which does nothing to the necessary condition; therefore, not getting us to the conclusion!

(D)- "People can if"; this is so weak, kinda like they can...but they can also not. We need something way stronger...like ONLY IF.

(E)- This is the same as (C)!! just worded more confusingly! Legal--->secure

[tommywallach]

I always stay away from formal logic when I can. Don't know why, but I hate formal logic.