Q17 - The stable functioning of a

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question! And the simple answer is no. A claim that is written explicitly can never be an assumption. An assumption is by definition unstated.

This question asks us to identify the role of the claim that a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens.

The first sentence of this argument is the conclusion and can be identified by the words "this is clear from" that begin the second sentence. Everything after the first sentence is evidence for why the first sentence is true. Thus, answer choice (B) properly identifies the role of the claim.

(A) is not true, the first sentence is the conclusion.
(C) is not true, the claim does not challenge the conclusion, but rather supports it.
(D) could possibly be the correct answer to another argument, but the statement does not follow as a result of the conclusion, but rather supports the conclusion.
(E) would be accurate if the claim was an example of a general principle. In fact this claim is a general principle, not an illustration of one. We know this because of the words "only if."

[clarafok]

hmm i always get questions with 'general principle' as one of the answer choices wrong!

could you give examples of 'general principle' and 'an illustration of a general principle'?

thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Think of a principle as a general rule that can be applied to many specific situations.

Here's an example:

Anything difficult to understand is hard to learn. German is hard to understand, therefore German is hard to learn.


The first sentence represents a generality. The second and third sentences create an argument that relies on the general principle. The one tip I'd have for principle questions is to think of the principle in if ... then ... form. Then match the "if" part with the evidence and the "then" part with the conclusion. And of course, always keep in mind the contrapositive.

[happyburst]

A quick question on how to best approach the problem: as I'm reading the stimulus, I see a string of conditional statements. Would it be preferable to just read through the stimulus and question stem, or make a habit of diagramming the conditional statements as I read along (which takes up time and doesn't seem to be particularly necessary here)?

[smsotolongo]

(E) would be accurate if the claim was an example of a general principle. In fact this claim is a general principle, not an illustration of one. We know this because of the words "only if."

Could you elaborate a little more on this answer. I struggled with this answer and these types of questions where you have to think of the argument structurally and abstractly are killing me. Why can't we have more assumption family questions. Thanks.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

We are asked to determine the function of the conditional statement in the third sentence, in the argument.
The stimulus is replete with conditionals so I took the liberty of drawing them out. You could also just try to use intuition to solve for this question.

1st sentence (Conclusion): Stable society (SC) then you need the long term goals of citizens to be stable (LTGCS)
2nd (Support): For a legislature to craft laws that augment the happines of citzens majority of citizens need to have long term goals that are stable.
3rd: Stable society (SC) --> laws augment happiness of citizens (AH)

3rd sentence (Premise): SC --> AH
2nd sentence (Premise) : LAH --> LTGCS)
------------------------------------------------------------
1st sentence: SC --> LTGCS (Conclusion)

We can see that when the conditional is combined to with the one in the second sentence, the conclusion can be properly drawn. Therefore we can see that the conditional in the third sentence is is a complimentary premise, that acts in tandem with the other premise to reach the conclusion.

In more abstract terms, this argument form takes the form of: A --> B B -->C, therefore A --> C, this is a valid argument form.

B--> C (premise, second sentence)
-------
A--> C (conclusion)

The third sentence gives us part of the missing logic chain (A --> B) and acts in tandem with the other sentence to substantiate the conclusion.


(A) No the first sentence is the conclusion
(B) Bingo. It's a complimentary premise which works in tandem with the other premise and when combined the conclusion is able to be properly drawn.
(C) No, it need not be refuted, when combined with the preceding sentence, it allows the conclusion to be properly drawn.
(D) It is not a consequence of the argument, it is part of the argument, it's a supporting premise.
(E) The argument isn't presupposing any general principle, the argument is actually valid, i.e., there is no defect in it's logic.

[crocca]

Great question! And the simple answer is no. A claim that is written explicitly can never be an assumption. An assumption is by definition unstated."

Hello,

What was the question that you were answering here? The original post was deleted.

I understand why E is wrong on the grounds that the sentence is not an illustration of a general principle, but am still a little mixed up about the "presupposes". Can presuppositions not be explicitly stated?

Thank you in advance!