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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—SN. The correct answer choice is (B)

This is a very challenging question, and possibly one of the most difficult logical reasoning questions
on the test, in part because of the convoluted conditional approach taken by the author.

The stimulus begins with the author’s conclusion that there can be no individual freedom without
the rule of law. We can diagram this statement by applying the Unless Equation: the phrase modified
by “without” becomes the necessary condition, whereas the remainder is negated and becomes the
sufficient condition. Thus, the first clause of the sentence can be diagrammed as follows:

S N

Conclusion: Individual Freedom Rule of Law

Even though there are no conclusion indicators to help us identify the conclusion, note that the
remainder of the sentence contains two premises that support the observation in the first clause:
first, there is no individual freedom without social integrity, and second, pursuing the good life
is not possible without social integrity. Applying the Unless Equation again, the premises can be
diagrammed as follows:

Premise (1): Individual Freedom Social Integrity

Premise (2): Pursue Good Life Social Integrity

You should immediately recognize that the second premise is superfluous and plays no role in
determining the logical cohesion of the argument. The relationship between the first premise and the
conclusion is implicitly conditional, and, when re-worded, can be diagrammed as follows:

Premise: Individual Freedom Social Integrity

Conclusion: Individual Freedom Rule of Law

The question stem asks us to identify a statement that, if assumed, would enable to the conclusion to
be properly drawn. Despite the word “assumed” in the stem, this is a Justify question because our job
is not to identify a statement upon which the argument depends, but rather to prove the conclusion
by adding a piece of information to the premises. The sufficient condition indicator (“if”) in the
question stem is a reminder that you must select an answer that is sufficient to prove the conclusion
by using the Justify Formula:

Premises + Answer choice = Conclusion

As with most Justify questions, there is a logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. To
prove the conclusion, we must establish that social integrity requires the rule of law:

Justify Formula: Social Integrity Rule of Law


Answer choice (B) agrees with this prephrase, and is therefore correct.

Another way to approach this Justify question would be as follows:

(1) Elements that appear in the relevant premises but not the conclusion usually appear
in the correct answer. Although these premise elements do not have to appear
in the correct answer, they often do because they represent a convenient linking
point. In this argument, “Social Integrity” appears in the relevant first premise but
not in the conclusion. Therefore, it is highly likely that it would appear in the correct
answer. Its absence from answer choices (C) and (E) helps eliminate them.

(2) Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise normally do
not appear in the correct answer, because there is a bridge already established that
justifies the presence of that element in the conclusion. Here, the element of “Individual
Freedom” is common to both the premise and the conclusion and need not
be present in the correct answer. Its presence in answer choices (D) and (E) helps
eliminate them.

Applying these two rules of solving Justify questions mechanistically leaves answer choices (A) and
(B) as the only possible contenders.

Answer choice (A): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer choice. After applying the
Unless Equation, this answer choice can be diagrammed as follows:

Rule of Law Social Integrity

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. After applying the Unless Equation, this
answer choice can be diagrammed as follows:

Social Integrity Rule of Law

This statement is consistent with our prephrase above, making answer choice (B) correct.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice can be eliminated quickly because it introduces an element
from the second premise of the argument (“pursue food life”), which is superfluous and has no
logical connection to the conclusion. Even if pursuing the good life requires the rule of law, this
would not be sufficient to establish that individual freedom requires it as well.

Furthermore, a smart test taker would eliminate this answer choice immediately because it does not
contain the element of “Social Integrity.” Since this element appeared in the relevant premise but not
in the conclusion, we would expect it to appear in the correct answer.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because the idea of individual freedom
prevailing falls outside the scope of the argument. Furthermore, its implication is tantamount to a
Mistaken Reversal of the first premise of the argument:

Social Integrity Individual Freedom

The author asserts that individual freedom requires social integrity, not that social integrity requires
individual freedom.

Answer choice (E): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the conclusion. The author asserts that there
can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, not that there can be no rule of law without
individual freedom. Furthermore, as with answer choice (C), we can eliminate this answer choice
immediately because it does not contain the element of “Social Integrity.” Since this element
appeared in the relevant premise but not in the conclusion, we would expect it to appear in the
correct answer.

[melissa27]

For question number 25 on the October 2010 located in section 4, would you please be able to diagram the conditionality?

I think my diagrams are incorrect therefore, not allowing me to arrive at the correct answer.

Thank you in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Hi Melissa. Conditional diagrams can be tricky, but we can often approach them mechanically. In Question 25, we have several examples of the use of the conditional indicator word "without," which is one of our special case indicators that requires us to use the "unless equation". In all of these statements, "without" indicates a necessary condition, and the other condition in the relationship must be negated to become the sufficient condition.

The first sentence is the conclusion we want to justify, and its diagram is something like "IF (if Individual Freedom) --> RL (then Rule of Law). The premises are "IF --> SI (then Social Integrity)" and "PPGL (if Possible to Pursue Good Life) --> SI." To prove the conclusion, IF --> RL, we need to find something that is necessary in the presence of IF, and which is then sufficient to require RL. That's answer choice B: SI --> RL.

Hope that helps!

[melissa27]

Thanks for your explanation!

I think I was getting confused with the "no" in front of individual freedom in both premises since I recognized the "unless equation" and put Rule of Law and Social Integrity on the necessary sides, but my mistake was that I negated the sufficient sides.

I thought that the "no" was modifying the necessary condition but then they included the phrase "without" I then knew "rule of law"/"social integrity" was the necessary portion and also knew I had to negate the sufficient side. Therefore since I believed "no" modified the necessary I had to negate the sufficient.

I hope that train of thought made sense, although now know that is wrong. Can you explain to me what the "no" is actually modifying and how it comes into play in this question.

Once I was reviewing the exam I went back to the conditionality lecture in lesson 2 and I think what confused me even more in the diagramming of question 25 was the diagramming of the following statements:

No electrician is an architect (# 3- pg 2-34. lesson 2 hw)

and

No one has the right to address the council except for the chairman. (#16- pg 2-36. lesson 2 hw)

and

No one in the Latin department is disallowed from teaching multiple classes this semester (#22- pg 2-37. lesson 2 hw)

[Nikki Siclunov]

Melissa,

Consider this:

"No one who practices will ever improve."

Here, practicing means you will not improve, because no one who practices ever improves.

So: Practice --> NOT improve

In general, the formula for diagramming a "no A's are B's" statement is:

A --> NOT B
B --> NOT A

Contrast this with the following statement:

"No one improves unless they practice."

In the second example, practicing is a necessary condition ("unless"). Because of the presence of the word "unless," however, the remainder must be negated to become sufficient. So, "no one improves" becomes "one improves":

Improve --> Practice

Going back to your original examples, "no electrician is an architect" is just like my first example above: if someone is an electrician, they cannot be an architect (and vice versa):

E --> NOT A
A --> NOT E

However, in your second example, things get more complicated:

No one has the right to address the council except for the chairman.

"Except for" refers to a necessary condition, but requires the application of the Unless Equation ("unless", "except," "until" and "without" are the magic words triggering the application of that equation). So, being a chairman is a necessary condition for addressing the council. The remainder ("No one has the right to address") must be negated to become sufficient, as per the Unless Equation. As a result, we have the following:

Right to Address ---> Chairman

Try this with the following example:

No lawyer can work long hours.

vs.

No one is a lawyer unless they can work long hours.

Hope this helps!

[melissa27]

Thanks Nikki!!

[melissa27]

Sorry to go back but for question #25, I now know why B is correct and you explained it perfectly. But why is C wrong. For Justify questions isn't "new elements" in either the conclusion or premises suppose to be in the correct AC. In this case there are new elements "Good life" and "rule of law." That is what initially prompted me to choose C.

[Nikki Siclunov]

(C) does not link "IF" in the conclusion. Remember, the argument is structured like this:

Premise 1) IF --> SI

Premise 2) GL --> SI

Conclusion: IF --> RL

What you need is a statement establishing that SI --> RL, which is (B).

Answer choice (C), on the other hand, states, that GL --> RL. The good life (GL) is entirely irrelevant to the conclusion, which is about individual freedom (IF). So it connects to the wrong premise, and it also uses the same sufficient condition as the one in the premise. You cannot make any additive inferences from the combination of the second premise with answer choice (C), let alone prove the conclusion.

[Applesaid]

Hello!

Not sure exactly how to justify this one.

premise 1: individual freedom ---> social integrity

premise 2: pursuing the good life ---> social integrity

conclusion: individual freedom ---> rule of law

and I am not sure how to connect those pieces from here.

[Jacques Lamothe]

Hey Applesaid,

The question is asking which answer choice must be used as an assumption to move from the premises to the conclusion. So you will not be able to connect the premises to the conclusion without using one of the answer choices. You did a great job diagramming the sentences, and those diagrams give you a hint about what kind of answer choice you're looking for.


You need to somehow reach the conclusion that "individual freedom --> rule of law." From the stimulus' premises, all we know about individual freedom is that "individual freedom --> social integrity," and we know nothing yet about rule of law. So we should be looking for an answer that connects rule of law to something from this known premise. Answer choice (B) ends up doing just that! If we diagram (B), we get "social integrity --> rule of law." When we combine that with our earlier premise that "individual freedom --> social integrity," we get "individual freedom --> rule of law." Which is exactly what our conclusion needed to be! So answer choice (B) allows the stimulus conclusion to follow logically from the premises.

I hope that helps!
Jacques



Social Integrity ---> Rule of law