Q1 - A law that is not consistently

[lhermary]

I got this one right because instituting real law is mentioned in only one sentence, but the question threw me off. How is C the main point of the passage? Isn't the first sentence the main point?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one is tricky in that it doesn't quite feel the same as so many other ID Conclusion questions - the answer choices only represent a portion of the argument's conclusion (the rest is contained in the question stem itself). One thing about this question that is consistent with so many other ID Conclusion questions is that the main point is not precisely stated, but is rather implied. This is a common way the LSAT has for increasing the difficulty of such questions. If there was a simple statement that could be read and then paraphrased, it would be an easier ID Conclusion question.

The main point of the argument is most completely stated in the second sentence, but to fully incorporate its implications we need the next two ideas that follow. Real law needs to have effective enforcement, and that enforcement needs to be administered without bias or favor. Those two ideas exist only in answer choice (C).

Incorrect Answers

(A) fails to limit its scope over the extent of that exercise of power and the method of executing that power.
(B) is about the authorization of power, whereas the argument is about the exercise and proper use of such power.
(D) is about understanding the purpose of law as opposed to the actual implementation of unbiased enforcement.
(E) is about the creation of laws, but fails to address either the enforcement of laws or the proper execution of such laws.