LSAT Explanation PT 41, S1, Q22: If violations of any of a

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument can be broken down into the following structure:

Premise 1: If violations of any of a society's explicit rules routinely go unpunished, then that society's people will be left without moral guidance.

Premise 2: People who lack moral guidance will act in many different ways, resulting in chaos.

Conclusion: A society ought never to allow any of its explicit rules to be broken with impunity.

The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the vulnerability or weakness in the argument's reasoning.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there a difference between routinely not punishing rule violations and never allowing rule violations to go unpunished?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not assume that avoiding chaos is the only reason for not routinely violating explicit rules. It only states that chaos results from people lacking moral guidance due to unpunished rule violations.

b) This answer choice is incorrect because it is out of scope. The argument is focused on the consequences of not punishing rule violations, not on the reasons why the rules were created in the first place.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not infer that the violation of any rule will lead to chaos. Instead, it states that chaos results when people lack moral guidance due to unpunished rule violations.

d) This is the correct answer. The argument confuses the routine nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule. The passage's conclusion states that a society ought never to allow any of its explicit rules to be broken with impunity, which implies that any violation should be punished. However, the premises discuss the consequences of routinely not punishing rule violations, not the occasional or rare instances of not punishing them.

e) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not assume that all of a society's explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken. The focus is on the consequences of not punishing rule violations in general, not on the severity of the consequences for specific rules.

In summary, the correct answer is D, as it highlights the flaw in the argument that confuses the routine nonpunishment of rule violations with sometimes not punishing them. This flaw weakens the argument's reasoning and conclusion.