#25 - There can be no individual freedom without the rule of

[jdavidwik]

I can see that Ryan's explanation is the definitive one, but I wanted to throw in my two cents re the other way to translate "without" in Justify SN questions, which mirrors the original Administrator explanation. This involves negating the Sufficient term:
IF > SI (A>B)
PGL > SI (E>B) This is the superfluous premise
IF > ROL (A>C)

Choice B gives us the B>C :
SI > ROL (B>C)

so we get IF > SI > ROL (A>B>C)

that's my "Kids are People Too" version......hope it helps

[skimmmm]

The only way I could get this to make sense for myself was to rephrase it Ellen Cassidy-style into something that makes no sense that you couldn't possibly get tripped up making incorrect associations. The argument below is basically the same as the stimulus.

Premise 1: Johnny can’t have peanut butter without shutting the door
Premise 2: Johnny can’t leave home without shutting the door
Conclusion: Johnny can’t have peanut butter without jelly
- Why? Because Johnny can’t have peanut butter without shutting the door.
- What? And you can’t shut the door without jelly.
Now does it make sense why Johnny can’t have peanut butter without jelly? It’s not for flavor, but it’s because it’s impossible to have peanut butter without shutting the door, and jelly is required for shutting the door.

If you apply this line of reasoning to the stimulus:

Premise 1: There is no individual freedom without social integrity
Premise 2: There is no pursuing the good life without social integrity
Conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law
- Why? Because there’s no individual freedom without social integrity.
- What? And rule of law is required for social integrity (i.e., there’s no social integrity without the rule of law)

The "why?" asks for the relevant premise that supports the conclusion, and the "what?" asks what the gap is between the relevant stimulus and the conclusion. In this question, the gap is that there's no social integrity without the rule of law, which is what B says.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi skimmmm,

It’s good to hear that you found that approach helpful.

Thank you for sharing it.