Subscription pricing
Hello! I am having trouble with when to chain statements and when to not. I am doing PT61.S4.Q25
Stimulus: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for there is no individual freedom without social integrity, and pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity.
My question:
Do I chain the first two statements? or are they separate and cannot be chained?
A) Individual Freedom ---> Rule of Law ---> Social Integrity
OR
B)
Individual Freedom ---> Rule of Law
Individual Freedom ---> Social Integrity
How do you know when it should be chained vs when it should be individual?
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-25/
0
1 comments
This one is tricky as hell. They can all be independent statements, but with the goal in mind (assumption), we know they are somehow linked and we need to find out which link makes the argument possible
No Social Integrity ---> no freedom
No Social Integrity ---> no good life
THEREFORE: No law ---> No freedom
In other words
Freedom depends on social integrity
Good life depends on social integrity (irrelevant; its there to throw you off)
cc. Freedom depends on rule of law
Because 2 is irrelevant, we need to focus on 1 and cc.
No Social Integrity -----> No Freedom
No law -----> No freedom
What links them? B.
No Law ---> No social integrity
Social integrity depends on rule of law
(A) seemed the only viable other choice, but it does not work because the conclusion is rule of law. The chain needs to end there. Instead, it links the chain from Rule of Law ---> Integrity; it goes the wrong way. The direction of the logic is reversed.
To make things clear, you need to contraposit them.
Freedom ---> Social Integrity
cc. Freedom ---> Law
Freedom ---> Social Integrity ---> (therefore) Law