#12 - Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed

[lilRio]

Hi LSAT Novice,

This question gives us a conditional relationship:

Effective Law (EL) Effective Enforcement Mechanism (EEM),

and the contrapositive,

EEM EL

The stimulus then tells us that police are one form of EEM. It then concludes that because there is no international police force, international law isn't effective, or:

PoliceInternational ELInternational

From here, we can see that in order to justify the conclusion, we need to show that lack of a police force leads to a lack of an effective enforcement mechanism, or:

PoliceInternational EEMInternational

Answer choice (E) provides this missing link in the conditional chain, and is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B) gives us a Mistaken Negation of the conclusion, or:

PoliceInternational ELInternational

Hope this clears things up!

Dear Powerscore,

I have difficulty identifying conditional relationships when there are no apparent sufficient or necessary indicator words. The last two sentences of this question are conditional, according to the above response. But how do know which part is the sufficient and necessary condition? In this case, the sufficient appears first, but I doubt that is a reliable indicator of how to order these conditional relationships. Thank you for your consideration.

-MMM

[Adam Tyson]

The stimulus here does have one clear conditional indicator, the word "must" in the first sentence. Beyond that, though, you're right that this argument lacks those clear indications. However, most arguments can be viewed conditionally by realizing that the author believes that their premises are sufficient (that is, they are enough, all by themselves) to prove their conclusions (in other words, thy think the conclusions are necessary, that they follow logically from the premises). So in this case, you can see that the author thinks that no international police force (their premise) is sufficient to prove that there is no effective international law (their conclusion). When a conclusion is completely certain, it may help to think of it as being a necessary condition, at least in the mind of the author (who could be, and very often is, mistaken).

It's not the order of the claims, as you said. It is the logical relationship between them that matters. The conclusion is what the author thinks is necessary, and the premises are, in the author's view, sufficient.

[gmsanch3]

Hello, I chose B, but now I see it is a mistaken negation. I had eliminated E almost immediately bc of the strong word “ONLY...” even though I see how this is the correct answer that word still throws me off since this is an assumption question. Can someone help me see why this word can be used here?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi gmsanch3!

We can't really ever eliminate an answer choice in an Assumption question just because it uses the word "only." There are plenty of assumptions that use strong, specific language. You're correct that we have to be careful about selecting an answer choice that provides more information than is necessary for the argument. But some arguments need strong assumptions.

Let's break down this argument:
Conclusion: what is called "international law" is not effective law
Premise: there is currently no international police force
Premise: the power of the police to enforce a society's laws makes those laws effective

We're looking for an answer choice that is necessary to the conclusion that "international law" is not effective law based on the premise that there is currently no international police force to enforce the laws and make those laws effective. If the only reason that international law is not considered effective is because there is no international police force to enforce those laws, then the author must be assuming that the only way for international laws to be effectively enforced is through an international police force. If an international police force wasn't the only way to enforce international laws, then this entire argument would fall apart. Thus, answer choice (E) is necessary for the argument.

Don't eliminate an answer choice just because it contains a strong/absolute term like "only." Really think about the term in the context of the answer choice and in the context of the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[gmsanch3]

Yup! It makes much more sense when you highlighted what the author says qualifies as effective law. I overlook these details often. I have to get better at seeing these. Thank you!

[queenbee]

Hi
I am not clear on the conditional statements.
I looked at the last 2 sentences:
(Note: I use "!" for a "not" just so it is readable)

if !(international police force )--> !(effective law)
the contra positive would have been
if (effective law) --> (international police force)

How will i know when it is safe to change the "then" to an "only if"
I fell into the same "trap" of avoiding the "only"
Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi queenbee!

For the conditional reasoning in the last two sentences, let's put them in the context of some other conditional reasoning in the stimulus.

To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an impressive declaration, a command must be backed up by an effective enforcement mechanism.

Eff EEM
EEM Eff

To rephrase that using the contrapositive, this is saying that if a command lacks an enforcement mechanism, then it can't qualify as effective law.

The last two sentences are:

But there is currently no international police force. Hence, what is called "international law" is not effective law.

Int Pol
Pol Int

Int law Eff
Eff Int law

This is an assumption question, and the editorial seems to rely on some unstated assumption about police. This ambiguity comes in through the middle sentences: "That is why societies have police. The power of the police to enforce a society's laws makes those laws effective." At first, it might seem like these sentences are saying that if a society has police, then one has an effective enforcement mechanism. But it also seems like they could be saying only if a society has police will one have an effective enforcement mechanism. It's therefore not clear based on these sentences whether there might be, for example, other effective enforcement mechanisms besides police.

This is what answer choice (E) gets at: "Only an international police force could effectively enforce international law." This adds in assumption that a police force is the only effective enforcement mechanism, which would permit the conclusion to follow that international law lacking a police force is not effective law. To confirm (E) using the Assumption Negation technique, a negation of (E) could be rephrased as, "[It is not the case that] only an international police force could effectively enforce international law." If this were true, the argument that international law is not effective would fall apart. If there were other effective enforcement mechanisms besides police, then it doesn't follow that a lack of a police force implies that international law is ineffective.

[Blondeucus]

I don't understand why E is a necessary assumption. Couldn't there be any different number of ways that a law could be enforced without necessitating an international police force? I saw E and immediately dismissed it due to this reason.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Blondeucus!

You comment,

Couldn't there be any different number of ways that a law could be enforced without necessitating an international police force?

The answer to this question is yes (rather than "any different number of ways," there's at least one other way), which is why (E) is correct. To see why it's is a necessary assumption, we can apply the Assumption Negation technique. That involves negating the answer choice and plugging that back into the stimulus. If this weakens/makes the argument fall apart, then we know it's a necessary assumption on which the argument depends.

Answer choice (E) states, "Only an international police force could effectively enforce international law." Stated somewhat formulaically, the negation of this would be "[It is not the case that] only an international police force could effectively enforce international law." Stated differently, "there is at least one other option besides an international police force that could effectively enforce international law."

If we plugged in that negated statement, the argument would fall apart. The conclusion is that "what is called 'international law' is not effective law." This is because effective law requires a police force, and there is no international police force. However, the negation is saying there are other means for policing international law besides an international police force. If that were true, then it doesn't follow that international law is not effective law just because there is no international police force.