#19 - Jurist: To ensure that a legal system remains just, it

[nlittle]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because this condition will not ensure that the legal system remains just. This answer choice seems to suggest the following:

• lawbreakers cannot have an unfair advantage over law abiders Legal system remain just

This is clearly a Mistaken Reversal of the principle (see above). Nothing will necessarily ensure a just legal system: ensuring that lawbreakers don't have an unfair advantage is a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for this outcome. Thus, if the system is to remain just, the condition referenced in the stem must be met.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

Ah! I see that this was my mistake. I was too eager with the indicator "ensure" as it typically would precede a necessary condition. Tricky testmakers, very tricky!

I can see now that the relationship is such that a just legal system actually requires the guarantee (assuming there is one, since "it is important to" may not even translate cleanly to "it is required to").

[deck1134]

Hello Powerscore staff,

This question is a prime example of something that I find challenging: the difference between "principles" and "premises" in the context of a method question. It seems like the LSAT authors will sometimes call a principle a premise on method questions, while other times requiring the selection of an answer choice that specifically designates that as a "principle."

This question, for instance, has an attractive wrong answer choice: (D), which is incorrect both because it is called a "premise," but also because it claims to identify the "most important goal," which is false.

How do we know when a principle is a premise versus just a principle?

Is my analysis of why (D) is wrong correct?

Any tips on these questions more generally?

[Adam Tyson]

A principle is just a rule, Deck, and it is typically conditional, though it isn't always. A principle can be a premise, or it can be a conclusion, or it could be something else.

A premise is a claim that the author wants us to accept as true, and which purportedly supports another claim (a conclusion). A principle can do this, but so can other claims that are not principles.

What it comes down to is how the statement is being used. If it is used to support another claim, then it is a premise; if it is not, it isn't.

Your analysis of D looks half right and half wrong. It's not wrong for calling that claim a premise, because it is a premise - a principle, yes, but one that supports the conclusion, so a premise. The real problem with D is the other thing you caught, the "most important goal" aspect, which is not what the author concluded.

"Premise" and "principle" are not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive terms. They just describe two different ways of classifying a given claim. The same thing happens with "opinion" and "conclusion". Can an opinion be a conclusion? You bet! "Therefore, chocolate tastes better than vanilla" is an opinion and a conclusion. Can a opinion be something other than a conclusion? Also yes! "Chocolate tastes better than vanilla, and Adam always gets the better tasting dessert, so Adam will definitely get the chocolate cake."

I hope that helps!

[am2gritt]

Ah! I see that this was my mistake. I was too eager with the indicator "ensure" as it typically would precede a necessary condition. Tricky testmakers, very tricky!

I can see now that the relationship is such that a just legal system actually requires the guarantee (assuming there is one, since "it is important to" may not even translate cleanly to "it is required to").

Hello!

I got this question correct, but I wasn't entirely sure when I selected my answer. Upon review, I am having trouble understanding why the first premise in the stimulus would be diagrammed as follows:

Legal system remain just lawbreakers cannot have an unfair advantage over law abiders

Is it the fact the stipulation that "it is important to," which suggests that there is more than one requirement necessary to ensure the legal system remains just?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The key indicator that suggests diagramming that first sentence in that way is the word "guarantee," am2gritt. "It is important to guarantee" could be paraphrased as "must guarantee" without substantively changing the meaning. The author seems to think not giving lawbreakers an advantage is an essential - necessary - element of a just legal system.