Q16 - Jurist: A nation's laws

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The stimulus contains three parts

1. A nation's laws must be viewed as expressions of a moral code that transcends those laws.
2. If a nation's laws are not viewed as expressions of a moral code that transcends those laws, then there would be no basis for preferring one set of laws to any other.
3. Moral prohibitions against the violation of statutes must leave room for exceptions.

The question asks us to find what can be inferred or what must be true, given the information in the stimulus. The correct answer is drawn from the combination of the first and third statements.

If a nation's laws are viewed as expressions of a moral code and there must be exceptions to moral prohibitions against the violation of statutes, then it must be true that sometimes, those statutes are in conflict with the moral code they express. Otherwise, why would you need to allow for exceptions? This is best expressed in answer choice (E).

(A) states the opposite from what we would expect. If the statutes are an expression of a moral code, we should expect those who formulate the laws to be concerned with morality.
(B) twists the second statement around. We would know about what conditions would be needed in order to prefer one set of laws over all others, but not what set of conditions would be required to choose one set of laws over all others.
(C) twists the first statement around. We know that a set of laws are viewed as an expression of a moral code. That however is different than saying that a moral code and a set of laws are indistinguishable.
(D) is the opposite of what is stated in the stimulus. We know that there are many statutes that people have a moral obligation to obey.
(E) reflects the combination of the first and third statements. If there must be exceptions, then there must be cases when statutes and the moral code it reflects come into conflict.

Hopefully this helps bring things more sharply into focus! Let me know if you'd like me to address anything more specifically!


#officialexplanation

[bnuvincent]

I don't think I got what the stimulus say, so could you please explain?

[gyfirefire]

Can anyone elaborate on why (B) is not correct? I couldn't find a legitimate reason to eliminate either (B) or (E) during the test.

Thanks a lot!!!

[trevor.lovell]

Re: why "B" is incorrect

The jurist is saying that laws are "expressions of" a moral code. You could just as easily say they're derived from this code.

"B" suggests that there are criteria other than those incumbent in the moral code from which laws are derived. This would undercut the jurist's premise. Her entire point is that the purpose of laws is to meet or enforce a single moral code (for each nation or society), and that some of those laws will inevitably compel people to act against that moral code, in which case exceptions to the law should be made.

Hope that helps!

[gyfirefire]

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation on choice (B). It helped a lot!

[mrudula_2005]

I still find (D) tempting though. If "any moral prohibition against the violation of statutes must leave room for exceptions" - then isn't (D) true? Doesn't the last line of the stimulus mean that every statute allows for exceptions...and therefore it would seem to me that there is no statute that a nation's citizens have a moral obligation to obey, then.

help?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (D) is simply too strong. While one could make the case that according to the stimulus statutes and moral obligations do not always align. Answer choice (D), however, says that statutes and moral obligations never align.

We see many common characteristics in incorrect answer choices to inference questions. One of them is an issue of degree. Had the answer choice said, "there are some statutes that a nation's citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey," it'd be a better answer choice.

[lsat42010]

For some reason, I just can't seem to understand what the last line of the stimulus is actually saying.

So, when the jurist states, "any moral prohibition against the violation of statutes", what does that actually mean?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

All the last sentence does is say that there must be room for exceptions.

Suppose you possess a code of ethics and you create a rule that says that ethical people always follow the law. Statute = law in this case. Well then segregation (which once was the law of the land) would be ethical. That surely can't be a good ethical system.

So the last sentence says, if you make a rule to yourself about ethical behavior, it must include the possibility of exceptions. So that you don't blindly follow bad laws.

[t_wm]

(E) reflects the combination of the first and third statements. If there must be exceptions, then there must be cases when statutes and the moral code it reflects come into conflict.

Hopefully this helps bring things more sharply into focus! Let me know if you'd like me to address anything more specifically!

I get (E) by eliminating the other four wrong choices.
However, I interpret the last sentence as a condition:

moral prohibitions against the violation of statutes --> leave room for exceptions.

It is a reversal of your explanation.

Can I say (E) is correct because the words (can sometimes) are flexible(i.e. the conflict is possible)?

[shodges]

Re: why "B" is incorrect

The jurist is saying that laws are "expressions of" a moral code. You could just as easily say they're derived from this code.

"B" suggests that there are criteria other than those incumbent in the moral code from which laws are derived. This would undercut the jurist's premise. Her entire point is that the purpose of laws is to meet or enforce a single moral code (for each nation or society), and that some of those laws will inevitably compel people to act against that moral code, in which case exceptions to the law should be made.

Hope that helps!

I don´t agree with this. I think the issue with (B) is simply that it is not supported. We have no idea if other criteria should be used in choosing one set of laws over another because that possibility isn't even hinted at in the stimulus. I don't think the possibility of an additional method would actually undercut a premise.

[nthakka]

"should" is an important word in (B) and a reason it could be eliminated. The jurist never introduces a course of action or what "should" be done, he simply describes what must be the case in society.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great discussion here!

I'm not sure that I agree with using the word "should" to eliminate answer choice (B). The argument does seem to recommend a course of action--leaving room in a moral prohibition against violating laws for exceptions. This seems to me to suggest that this recommends a course of action to take regarding following a moral prohibition against violating laws. Though this is different than a recommended course of action about which laws to follow.

I might agree with shodges that (B) is out of scope. The argument doesn't state what criteria go into choosing laws outside of criteria derived from a moral code. Could that choice include other criteria? Sure, why not?

[kyuya]

Premise 1: Laws must be viewed as expressions of a moral code , but this moral code transcends those laws.

Premise 2: If these laws are not viewed as an expression of a moral code that transcends the laws themselves, a society would have no basis for preferring a given set of laws to others.

Conclusion: any moral prohibition against the violation of statues must leave room for exceptions.

Okay so if you're like me the conclusion really confused you. What does that even mean? I think it becomes easier if you parse the language.

So we know that moral codes transcend laws. What does this truly mean? It means that its conceivable that there is a law that doesn't take precedent over, or is in contradiction with moral codes.

But what is a moral "prohibition"? A prohibition is when we stop something... like alcohol prohibition. We stopped allowing people to bring in alcohol or consume it completely. So any moral prohibition against violating laws, or in other words, anyone that thinks we should NOT be breaking laws due to the immorality of it (laws ARE based on morals remember?) must leave room for exceptions. This means that Its not ALWAYS immoral to break or go against laws. Its not 100% accurate according to these moral codes that ALWAYS following laws is the correct thing to do. Put simply, there is conflict between moral codes and laws at least sometimes.

Lets get into the answer choices.

(A) We don't know anything about those who formulate statutes, so we cannot possibly know what their concerns are.

(B) The stimulus never says this. Actually, it seems to think the criteria derived from the moral codes is pretty great.

(C) The stimulus also opposes this. It says that morals transcend laws, and furthermore with the conclusion it suggests that compliance with laws and moral codes are not always indistinguishable.

NOT legally forbidden to violate some moral rules ---> moral behaviour and compliance with laws are indistinguishable (This is the condition statement)

Basically its saying if something is not illegal, then we know law and moral compliance are the exact same. But remember, the conclusion tells us that morals transcend laws, and that we MUST leave room for exceptions, meaning that this is necessarily a difference at times between following the law and following the moral code.

(D) This is way too strong of an answer. Laws are based on morals, so how could we really say this? We never completely are told to disregard laws, but rather they are not 100% correct all the time.

(E) This is what we are looking for. The stimulus goes out of its way to tell us morals go beyond laws, and that we must leave exceptions. This means that laws can sometimes come into conflict with the moral codes that they are an expression of -- and it seems to be suggesting we defer to the moral codes.

[callmejinny]

Premise 1: Laws must be viewed as expressions of a moral code , but this moral code transcends those laws.

Premise 2: If these laws are not viewed as an expression of a moral code that transcends the laws themselves, a society would have no basis for preferring a given set of laws to others.

Conclusion: any moral prohibition against the violation of statues must leave room for exceptions.

Okay so if you're like me the conclusion really confused you. What does that even mean? I think it becomes easier if you parse the language.

So we know that moral codes transcend laws. What does this truly mean? It means that its conceivable that there is a law that doesn't take precedent over, or is in contradiction with moral codes.

But what is a moral "prohibition"? A prohibition is when we stop something... like alcohol prohibition. We stopped allowing people to bring in alcohol or consume it completely. So any moral prohibition against violating laws, or in other words, anyone that thinks we should NOT be breaking laws due to the immorality of it (laws ARE based on morals remember?) must leave room for exceptions. This means that Its not ALWAYS immoral to break or go against laws. Its not 100% accurate according to these moral codes that ALWAYS following laws is the correct thing to do. Put simply, there is conflict between moral codes and laws at least sometimes.

Lets get into the answer choices.

(A) We don't know anything about those who formulate statutes, so we cannot possibly know what their concerns are.

(B) The stimulus never says this. Actually, it seems to think the criteria derived from the moral codes is pretty great.

(C) The stimulus also opposes this. It says that morals transcend laws, and furthermore with the conclusion it suggests that compliance with laws and moral codes are not always indistinguishable.

NOT legally forbidden to violate some moral rules ---> moral behaviour and compliance with laws are indistinguishable (This is the condition statement)

Basically its saying if something is not illegal, then we know law and moral compliance are the exact same. But remember, the conclusion tells us that morals transcend laws, and that we MUST leave room for exceptions, meaning that this is necessarily a difference at times between following the law and following the moral code.

(D) This is way too strong of an answer. Laws are based on morals, so how could we really say this? We never completely are told to disregard laws, but rather they are not 100% correct all the time.

(E) This is what we are looking for. The stimulus goes out of its way to tell us morals go beyond laws, and that we must leave exceptions. This means that laws can sometimes come into conflict with the moral codes that they are an expression of -- and it seems to be suggesting we defer to the moral codes.

Thank you, Kyuya this was the exact explanation I needed!

[bho.check]

I'm going to chime my two cents here just because I'm in the middle of prep and would like to articulate my reasoning.

The conclusion for this stimulus, as some has pointed out, was really challenging, so I just took out (ANY) double negatives from:

"Any moral prohibition against the violation of statutes"

Doing so left me with the conclusion that if moral goes against statutes, there must be the possibility of exceptions.

This is why (E) was the right answer, because it should that the moral that "transcends" laws might not always align with the laws themselves, and if it is possible for Morality to go against the Law, there must be the possibility of conflicts (where they don't necessarily agree) between Morality and Law.

I hope that makes sense, or is even accurate. If this discussion could be revived again, that'd be great!

[haeeunjee]

To above poster who said the conclusion was: "if moral goes against statutes, there must be the possibility of exceptions."

I don't think that's accurate. I think the conclusion is more so: "there should be exceptions in the moral judgment against the breaking of the law" (ie. if someone breaks the law, they're not necessarily morally wrong; we need to have moral exceptions)

It's not so much that we're talking about legal exceptions, but moral exceptions.

Also, I was so confused about the wording of (C), so I broke it down to this:

If NOT legally forbidden ever to violate some moral rules --> moral behavior and legal compliance are the same

or, in other words--

If you are legally allowed to violate some moral rules --> moral behavior and legal compliance are same

Few things wrong with this:
(1) no conditionals in the stimulus, so I don't think a conditional can be inferred in a "properly inferred" type of question
(2) the stimulus concludes the opposite; that moral behavior and legal compliance are NOT necessarily the same
(3) it's not about being legally allowed to violate some moral rules, more so being morally allowed to violate some legal rules

A correct, revised answer might be: "Sometimes, one is not morally forbidden from violating some legal rules" or "Sometimes, moral behavior and legal compliance are not one and the same"

Can anyone check my reasoning? Esp my thought in (1) that no conditional inferences can be made from a stimulus that has no conditionals (for must be true / inference questions)

[JenniferK632]

There seems to be a few disagreements as to whether this is a conditional question. Could anyone enlighten me?

What is the best strategy for non-conditional inference questions? Thanks!

[Laura Damone]

I wouldn't consider conditional logic to be the main driver of this question. Yes, words like "must" denote a relationship of necessity. But because the concepts expressed in the stimulus don't "chain" together, I don't think it's a particularly helpful lens through which to evaluate the question.

Instead, I'm taking an answer-choice driven approach to the question. I look at each answer and ask myself "Is this 100% guaranteed by the stimulus?" If I'm not sure, I can consider the negation, just like we would for a Necessary Assumption question. If you negate the answer, does it disrupt the stimulus? If not, eliminate! If so, select! That's particularly helpful with a subtle answer like E. If the laws never come into conflict with the moral code they express, why would we need to leave room for exceptions?

This concept is tested in other questions, too. Check out 53-3-15 for another example!