BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Law enforcement

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Law enforcement

by gmat009 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:13 pm
Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

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

(A) No effective law is unenforceable
(B) All enforceable laws are effective
(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable
(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective
(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Law enforcement

by iamcste » Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:02 pm
gmat009 wrote:Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

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

(A) No effective law is unenforceable
(B) All enforceable laws are effective
(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable
(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective
(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable

B
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Law enforcement

by gmat009 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:40 pm
iamcste wrote:
gmat009 wrote:Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

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

(A) No effective law is unenforceable
(B) All enforceable laws are effective
(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable
(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective
(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable

B
Even I picked B but answer is not B.
Glad to know I am not the only one thinking this way
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Thanked: 237 times
Followed by:25 members
GMAT Score:730

Re: Law enforcement

by logitech » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:11 pm
gmat009 wrote:Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

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

(A) No effective law is unenforceable

Correct Answer:

Deny: At least some effective law is unenforceable.

"when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. " Sub-conclusion falls apart..

(B) All enforceable laws are effective

Shell game answer. We are talking about Ineffective laws are enforceable. B tells us the opposite.

(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable

It is already stated in the conclusion, so it can not be an assumption

(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective

It is already stated in the conclusion, so it can not be an assumption

(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable

It is already stated in the conclusion, so it can not be an assumption
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

Re: Law enforcement

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:54 pm
gmat009 wrote:Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.

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

(A) No effective law is unenforceable
(B) All enforceable laws are effective
(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable
(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective
(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable
The reason why the argument doesn't stand on its own is because of a scope shift.

The evidence tells us that gambling prohibitions are uneforceable.
The evidence also tells us that we shouldn't have ineffective laws.

To combine these together to reach the conclusion that we shouldn't have gambling prohibitions, the author must be assuming that if a law is unenforceable, it must be ineffective.

So, basically, the assumption is:

If unenforceable, then ineffective.

For that statement to be true, it also must be true that:

If effective, then enforceable.

If we know (A), that there are no effective laws that are unenforceable, then we know that all effective laws ARE enforceable, which is exactly what we're looking for. Therefore, if (A) is true, the conclusion can be properly drawn: choose (A).

(B) gets the relationship backwards. Knowing that all enforceable laws are effective does NOT tell us that all effective laws are enforceable. Making that leap is analagous to saying that since all dogs are mammals, all mammals must be dogs.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Thanked: 237 times
Followed by:25 members
GMAT Score:730

by logitech » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:12 pm
Excellent explanation Stuart.

Can you give us some brief information on scope shift and how we can identify one ?
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:16 am
logitech wrote:Excellent explanation Stuart.

Can you give us some brief information on scope shift and how we can identify one ?
"Scope shift" is just a fancy way of saying that different parts of the argument talk about different things. Most commonly, the scope shift occurs between the evidence and the conclusion. In the question cited above, we have an example of a rarer phenomenon - a scope shift within the evidence itself.

Scope shifts are extremely useful for identifying assumptions. If you look at the conclusion and notice that it introduces something (usually a noun) that's never been discussed in the evidence, then you know that the author MUST be making an assumption about that thing.

Here's an example:
Advertisement: Everyone knows that the XJ2000 dishwasher is the most technologically advanced on the market. Therefore, if you don't want to have to spend a lot of money on dishwasher repair, the XJ2000 is the only choice for you!
In the evidence, we're told that the XJ2000 is technologically advanced. However, the conclusion isn't focused on technology, it's focused on reliability/durability. Are these the same things? Definitely not.

For the argument to make sense, the author must be assuming that there's a connection between not requiring repairs (introduced in the conclusion for the first time) and level of technology (discussed in the evidence, but not the conclusion).
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Fri May 13, 2016 1:39 am
I will Go with option B in this case
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1