LSAT Explanation PT 24, S2, Q21: Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Sufficient Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage's argument. The newspaper editor states that legal prohibitions against gambling are impossible to enforce and that laws that are not effective should not exist. The conclusion of the argument is that there should be no legal prohibition against gambling. The structure of the argument can be summarized as follows:

Premise 1: Gambling laws are unenforceable.

Premise 2: If a law is not effective, it should not be a law.

Conclusion: There should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

The question type for this problem is Sufficient Assumption, which asks us to identify an assumption that, if true, would allow the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn.

Now, let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) No effective law is unenforceable.

This answer choice can be rephrased as "All effective laws are enforceable." If we assume this statement is true, then we can conclude that all unenforceable laws are not effective. Since gambling laws are unenforceable (Premise 1), they must be not effective. According to Premise 2, laws that are not effective should not exist. Therefore, this assumption allows us to properly draw the conclusion that there should be no legal prohibition against gambling. This is the correct answer.

b) All enforceable laws are effective.

This answer choice does not help us draw the conclusion because it only tells us about enforceable laws, and we know that gambling laws are unenforceable. We need information about unenforceable laws to draw the conclusion.

c) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable.

This answer choice merely restates Premise 1 and does not provide any new information to help us draw the conclusion.

d) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective.

This answer choice introduces a new criterion for a law to be effective, but it does not help us establish a connection between enforceability and effectiveness, which is necessary to draw the conclusion.

e) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable.

Similar to answer choice (d), this answer choice introduces a new criterion for enforceability but does not help us connect enforceability and effectiveness.

In summary, answer choice (a) is the correct answer because it provides the necessary assumption that connects enforceability and effectiveness, allowing us to properly draw the conclusion that there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.