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

[SLF]

With regard to LSAT #61, Section #4, Question #25, how do I process this problem and select the correct answer?

The rules as I understand them from the PowerScore Bible's teachings are:

individual freedom rule of law
individual freedom social integrity
good life possible social integrity

The problem is, now that I have these rules, I don't know how to use them to discriminate between the answers...I don't know how to tell which one is correct and which ones are incorrect.

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, SLF,

Your diagrams are accurate. What you want to be doing is connecting together all the elements of the argument as best as possible. Here, individual freedom and rule of law are linked, as are individual freedom and social integrity. But nowhere in the stimulus is there any stated relationship between rule of law and social integrity.

You're trying to connect it all together into a chain relationship, like so:

Individual freedom Social integrity Rule of law

B provides the "social integrity rule of law" link that's necessary to complete the argument.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
PowerScore

[SLF]

Thanks!

[law90]

Question 25 in section four from the October 2010 Prep Test is one of the few incorrect answers I received in this section; however, I am unable to precisely figure out the exact diagramming in the question. Could someone please show me how the correct answer comes to be? Thanks!

[Ron Gore]

Hi Law!

One of the great things about this forum is that we've developed quite a repository of information. In fact, this question has been discussed extensively. Please check out the prior discussion about this question, and see if that helps.

If you still have questions, though, please don't hesitate to ask!

Thanks,

Ron

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, I was attempting to diagram out this problem and solve it mechanistically with the justify formula but was having some problems and ended up with the wrong answer. I identified the first sentence as the conclusion and the rogue term there is rule or freedom. Then I wasn't sure if the answer was supposed to contain the term good life or social integrity. I thought that social integrity wouldnt be part of the answer given that it was present in two premises. Please clarify how to get answer B. Thank you

[Ron Gore]

Hi JK,

This question has previously been discussed in detail by my colleague Nikki. Please review his explanation. And, please be sure to search the forum prior to posting your questions. If you have further questions after reviewing Nikki's answer, please be sure to ask, and we'll be happy to help.

Ron

[bli2016]

Hi, I was wondering if the statement the "pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity" was essential to this argument. It seems to me like the missing link between individual freedom and rule of law could be deduced without it. Please let me know if I'm right or wrong here. Thanks!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi bli2016,

You are correct that "pursuing the good life" is irrelevant. The conclusion of this argument is about individual freedom, and we don't need the "good life" connector to assemble the chains of reasoning in this question.

Best of luck studying,

Athena Dalton

[lathlee]

Hi. Actually the key to solve this question is to realize the second oremjse of pursuing the good life possible socil intergrity doesnt play any role. But how did the authors and experts of lst bible knew that? Does that come from intuiuon harnessed insane amount of practice ?