Subscription pricing
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-25/
From a common sense stand point, the necessary assumption makes sense.
So because blah blah is injurious to democracy, then legislators should not do something. Why should the legislators not do something? Because it is injurious to democracy.
So if the legislator does do that “something,” then it is blah blah injurious to democracy.
But what is the correct way to diagram using logic?
A -> -B.
B -> -A? (But this can’t be right, because “-A” would mean that blah blah is not injurious to democracy…
0
2 comments
@torahisland910
The stimulus says that if there's widespread acceptance that people can't look after themselves --> then democracy is injured. [WA -> DI]
The stimulus then claims legislature shouldn't prohibit things that only harm the person violating the law, since [this is the gap/assumption in the stimulus. One would expect the stimulus to say that the assumption governing such legislation is that people can't take care of themselves, and need laws to force them to do so.] The stimulus concludes that the assumption of legislators often become widely accepted.
As noted in bold above, the argument is fine other than it leaving out the assumption of the legislatures that will become widespread.
Leg. for self harm --> X assumption --> X assumption will become widely accepted = democracy injured.
For the argument to persuade, X must be the assumption that people can't look after themselves.
Edited title because you marked down the wrong section# :P