Q25 - There can be no individual

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Without the rule of law, there would be no individual freedom.
Evidence: Without social integrity, there would be no individual freedom (and no pursuit of the good life)

Answer Anticipation:
We know that "rule of law" must be in the correct answer, because it ONLY appears in the conclusion.

To prove this conclusion, we have to get from "no rule of law" to "no indiv freedom".
The evidence gives us a conveyor belt that takes us from "no social integrity" to "no indiv freedom".
We just need to get "no rule of law" to step on that conveyor belt.

If we had "no rule of law --> no social integrity",
we could attach that to the premise and get "no rule of law -> no social integrity -> no individual freedom".

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Illegal reversal. A rule that says "no social integrity -> no rule of law" wouldn't chain onto the premise and allow us to derive "no rule of law -> no indiv freedom".

(B) Yes! We can join this rule, "No rule of law -> no social integrity" to the premise rule "no social integrity -> no indiv freedom", and that will allow us to derive the conclusion, that "no rule of law" takes us all the way to "no indiv freedom".

(C) The good life as no usefulness to us. We could say "no rule of law -> no pursuit of good life", but "no pursuit of good life" doesn't take us anywhere else.

(D) This doesn't mention "rule of law", so it's not even worth reading.

(E) This is just an illegal reversal of the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: Sufficient Assumption is not like the vast majority of Logical Reasoning. It is a mathematical task, because we have to DERIVE the conclusion. So make sure you switch into mathematical thinking: find the conclusion, figure out what you DO know about the ideas in the conclusion, and figure out what you'd NEED TO ESTABLISH in order to guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[kimyooji]

I came down with A and B. I really don't understand how B is the answer and why A is not.

Can you show me how I could diagram this? Thank you!

[tiffanybwong]

I'd like to attempt a response:

There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for (premise indicator) there is no individual freedom without social integrity, and pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity.

So social integrity is necessary for individual freedom .

In formal logic that is IF individual freedom THEN social integrity, therefore rule of law is necessary for social integrity.

individual freedom ---> social integrity --->rule of law

Which is answer choice B.

"A" says rule of law ---> social integrity, which is the "Reverse Flaw" 100% opposite answer.

[jklein1233]

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind that logic. All we know is that social integrity and rule of law are both necessary for individual freedom. I don't understand how you can make the jump to say that social integrity is necessary for rule of law or vice versa. All we know is that they are both necessary for individual freedom.

Any further explanation would be appreciated.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

What you stated about the necessary conditions is correct -- let me see if I can fill in the remaining areas --


This is a sufficient assumption question, and, furthermore, it's one that clearly involves conditional logic (all the absolute statements in the argument should indicate that to you). What that means is that there will likely be some linking of information to arrive at a conclusion, and there will be a missing link. The correct answer will represent the "link" you need to make the conclusion sound.

Here's a very basic visual example to illustrate:

The author may use evidence that shows:

A = B and C = D

Then conclude that A = D.

In order to make that conclusion true, we would need a "link" between B and C, and that is what the right answer would provide.

Of course, this is harder to see in the context of an LSAT argument, so let's break this argument down carefully.

And let's use the following symbols to make the logic more clear:

Individual Freedom = IF
Rule of Law = RL
Social Integrity = SI
Pursing Good Life = PGL

The argument starts with the author's main conclusion, which can be written as follows:

- RL --> - IF

If there is no rule of law, then IT MUST BE TRUE that there is no individual freedom.

Of course, we can think about the conclusion in terms of its contrapositive as well --

IF --> RL

If there is individual freedom, then IT MUST BE TRUE that there is rule of law.

Everything else that follows is meant to serve as the evidence:

"There is no individual freedom without social integrity"

- SI -> - IF (If no social integrity, it MUST BE TRUE there is no individual freedom)

"Pursing the good life is not possible without social integrity."

- SI -> - PGL

So, here's our evidence:
- SI -> - IF (and its contrapositive)
- SI -> - PGL (and its contrapositive)

And here's the author's conclusion:
- RL --> - IF (and its contrapositive)

We need an answer that allows us to link evidence to conclusion.

(A) can be notated:

- SI -> - RL

Does this help us use the evidence to link to the conclusion? We could try to play around with contrapositives and whatnot, but it doesn't seem very likely from the get-go.

(B) can be notated:

- RL -> - SI

Can this be linked to the evidence to form the conclusion? Yes! We can link it to the first piece of evidence given (-SI -> - IF)

If - RL - > - SI, and - SI -> - IF, then we can say - RL -> - SI.

(B) provides the link we need.

Hope that helps!

[siliconrs]

Mike,

I see what you are saying, here's where I am a bit lost:

When taking the prompt at face value I get the same as you:
C: ~RL -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~GL
This makes it very easy to see the correct AC since ~RL -> ~SI means that ~RL -> ~IF and ~SI -> ~GL

However, I when I see "without" I always negate the SC and use the rest as the NC (this exactly what I did the first time). This in effect makes the prompt look like:
C: IF -> RL
P: IF -> SI
P: GL -> SI
The AC Contra: SI -> RL

In this case, I do not see the same sort of linkage since SI and RI are NCs and GL seems to be left out completely.

In a case like this, is one forced to use only the rule (as opposed to the contrapositive) or am I just missing something? I know they are logically equivalent, but am not sure how to proceed.

[egirarde]

Mike,

I see what you are saying, here's where I am a bit lost:

When taking the prompt at face value I get the same as you:
C: ~RL -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~GL
This makes it very easy to see the correct AC since ~RL -> ~SI means that ~RL -> ~IF and ~SI -> ~GL

However, I when I see "without" I always negate the SC and use the rest as the NC (this exactly what I did the first time). This in effect makes the prompt look like:
C: IF -> RL
P: IF -> SI
P: GL -> SI
The AC Contra: SI -> RL

In this case, I do not see the same sort of linkage since SI and RI are NCs and GL seems to be left out completely.

In a case like this, is one forced to use only the rule (as opposed to the contrapositive) or am I just missing something? I know they are logically equivalent, but am not sure how to proceed.

Same question. Anyone out there?

Thanks,

E

[efcaley]

You have still reached the answer with this method:

SI -> RI means that if we have SI, then we have to have RI OR

we cannot have SI without RI, which matches the correct AC.

The correct linkage chain then becomes:

IF -> SI -> RL.

I struggled with this question, too!

[farhadshekib]

Mike,

I see what you are saying, here's where I am a bit lost:

When taking the prompt at face value I get the same as you:
C: ~RL -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~IF
P: ~SI -> ~GL
This makes it very easy to see the correct AC since ~RL -> ~SI means that ~RL -> ~IF and ~SI -> ~GL

However, I when I see "without" I always negate the SC and use the rest as the NC (this exactly what I did the first time). This in effect makes the prompt look like:
C: IF -> RL
P: IF -> SI
P: GL -> SI
The AC Contra: SI -> RL

In this case, I do not see the same sort of linkage since SI and RI are NCs and GL seems to be left out completely.

In a case like this, is one forced to use only the rule (as opposed to the contrapositive) or am I just missing something? I know they are logically equivalent, but am not sure how to proceed.

Same question. Anyone out there?

Thanks,

E

I struggled with this, too, but you guys have it down right:

P1: IF --> SI

P2: GL --> SI

C: IF --> RL

(B) says SI --> RL

In this case, you connect P1 with answer choice (B) and you get the conclusion.

IF --> SI --> RL

Conclusion: IF --> RL

(A) says: RL --> SI, which is the reverse of what we want.

(C): GL --> RL, but then we would need something suggesting that IF --> GL, in order to get IF --> RL. We don't have that, so this can't be right.

(D) says: SI ---> FP (freedom prevails)... A distorted reversal of Premise 1.

(E) RL --> IF is a reversal of the conclusion

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

(A) says: RL --> SI, which is the reverse of what we want.

(C): GL --> RL, but then we would need something suggesting that IF --> GL, in order to get IF --> RL. We don't have that, so this can't be right.

(D) says: SI ---> FP (freedom prevails)... A distorted reversal of Premise 1.

(E) RL --> IF is a reversal of the conclusion

I just worked through this problem and took notes on why each of the incorrect answers were wrong, and almost verbatim, when I finished reading this post you had the same thing already there! Great work! I have nothing to add!

[xingdavid]

I tried to keep this question as simple as possible when I attempted it. So I clearly separated the conclusion and the premises and tried to link them.

Conclusion: IF > RL
Premise 1: IF > SI
Premise 2: GL > SI

For a sufficient assumption with clear conditional reasoning, you need to see how you can arrive at the conclusion from the premises.

Well, a common term in both the conclusion and premises is "social integrity". So in linking premise 1 with the conclusion, you get:

IF > SI > RL

Answer B states that:
SI > RL

Which is what the linked chain also states.

I didn't end up looking at the chain from the 2nd premise, because I was able to arrive at the conclusion without it.

[sumukh09]

How would one arrive at the correct answer for this one without resorting to conditional logic? I used to conditional logic to get to B), but I'm just curious if anyone spotted the gap without using conditionals. I'm trying to get better at spotting the flaw intuitively rather than relying too heavily on conditional logic and only using conditional logic as a back-up. Though I think it depends primarily on the stimulus and how conditional heavy it is; but regardless, it's better to be able to have two ways than one to arrive at the correct answer; just in case you want to verify the answer choice by comparing one method to the other ie) seeing if the flaw you spot intuitively corresponds to the gap in the conditional chain

[christine.defenbaugh]

How would one arrive at the correct answer for this one without resorting to conditional logic? I used to conditional logic to get to B), but I'm just curious if anyone spotted the gap without using conditionals. I'm trying to get better at spotting the flaw intuitively rather than relying too heavily on conditional logic and only using conditional logic as a back-up. Though I think it depends primarily on the stimulus and how conditional heavy it is; but regardless, it's better to be able to have two ways than one to arrive at the correct answer; just in case you want to verify the answer choice by comparing one method to the other ie) seeing if the flaw you spot intuitively corresponds to the gap in the conditional chain

Interesting question, sumukh09!

Different people have different preferences in how much they rely on conditional logic, and I'll be perfectly honest that I'm a conditional fangirl, myself. Particularly with a strictly conditional question setup such as this, with somewhat intangible elements, I find that trying to rely on an intuitive sense of the argument quickly gets me feeling fuzzy and confused. The beauty of the conditionals is that they are concrete and reliable.

I think this argument is particularly difficult to get ahold of without using the conditional breakdown. That's not to say that we have so be super formal with our breakdown though. We could think through the essential meaning of the conditionals without resorting to symbols.

So, the conclusion here is that NOT having the rule of law is really bad for freedom. Why? Because not having social integrity is really bad for freedom. Also, not having social integrity is bad for 'the good life'.

Okay, so we've established that not having social integrity sucks in a few ways - no freedom or good life for you! But....what does any of this have to do with 'rule of law'? I know need to connect to that new idea in the conclusion. (We can eliminate (D) based on that.)

Why in the world would not having the rule of law kill our freedom? The only way this could work is if not having the rule of law had an effect on some other something, and THAT thing killed our freedom. Okay, so we need a something that we know kills our freedom.

And we have one in the premises! If we didn't have social integrity, THAT would kill our freedom! Okay, so if not having the rule of law were to mean that we didn't have social integrity, that would HAVE to kill our freedom. Sweet! So to fix this argument, we'd just need to know that not having the rule of law would mean we had no social integrity.

And that's exactly what (B) says!

Now, I think working through this kind of approach can be extremely beneficial in helping us understand why conditional statements work the way they do while we are studying. But using this thought process on test day could potentially be extremely time consuming. Also, the denser the elements, the easier it is to get turned around in what is actually being talked about.

All in all, I think having a solid conceptual basis for your conditional logic is critical, but you want the translation and manipulation of conditionals to be a fully functional tool that you can use without getting caught up in the surrounding verbiage on test day.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!

[mornincounselor]

If we translated the difficult prompt into more visual elements we would have:

There can be no pizza without cheese, for there can be no pizza without milk fat, and to eat healthy is not possible without milk fat.

Choice (B) would say: There can be no milk fat without cheese.

I don't see any significance in the words after the comma. Am I wrong? I mean its significantly distracting, but besides that.

[rachellewrx]

The " good life" part is a trap. But we can only know it's a trap after analyzing the logic behind the stimulus .

Premise: if we want individual freedom, we need social integrity.
if we want good life, we need social integrity.
Conclusion: if we want individual freedom, we need rule of law.

So we need to build a bridge at least as big as the gap btw the conclusion and premises. The shortest bridge we can build is btw social integrity and rule of law since they both relate to individual freedom. In order for that to work, we need something that says " if we want social integrity, we need rule of law", which is what B says. I actually think B is both a sufficient and necessary condition.

A is the opposite of B. It means " if we want rule of law, we need social integrity". Together with the first premise, we can only conclude that social integrity is necessary to both individual freedom and rule of law.

Luckily B is one of the answer choices. If it hadn't , then I would have to seriously think about the " good life" part.

[contropositive]

I did this in my head and I got the right answer but it was a time sink.

When I did it in logic form it was much better and easier. However, I get confused about the word "no" and "without" especially when it's in an argument that relies so heavily on logic chains.

I learned to just eliminate "no" statements. But what about "without" do I just eliminate and ignore that too? When I eliminated "no" and "without" in this argument I got:

IF - SI
GL - SI
Therefore, IF - RL

Link: GL - IF - SI - RL

I read C as " /GL - RL " which is incorrect negation so I eliminated it.

I don't know if I am doing something wrong...

[maryadkins]

I learned to just eliminate "no" statements. But what about "without" do I just eliminate and ignore that too?

I wasn't sure where you were going with this, but now I see that you mean if you have "no X without Y," you can just interpret that as "X then Y." That is correct. Your diagram is also correct except where you link GL to IF, because that doesn't happen. GL is linked to SI, and so is IF. GL turns out to be excess and doesn't need to come into play at all, as we see in B.

I read C as " /GL - RL " which is incorrect negation so I eliminated it.

Mm, no. The reason (C) is wrong is what another poster wrote earlier: "GL --> RL, but then we would need something suggesting that IF --> GL, in order to get IF --> RL. We don't have that, so this can't be right."