PT101.S2.Q21 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The conclusion is that there shouldn’t be a legal prohibition against gambling. This is based on the following:

Gambling laws can’t be enforced.

If a law is not effective, it should not be a law.

The second premise (if a law is not effective, it should not be a law) gives us a way to prove that something shouldn’t be a law. So if we can learn that gambling laws aren’t effective, we can prove that they shouldn’t be laws. The first premise establishes that gambling laws can’t be enforced. There’s a missing link between “can’t be enforced” and “not effective.” We should go to the answers looking for “If a law can’t be enforced, then it’s not effective.” Or, the contrapositive: “If a law is effective, it has to be enforceable.”

This establishes that if a law is effective, it must NOT be UNenforceable. Take away the double negative and this means, if a law is effective it must be enforceable. This establishes that since gambling laws aren’t enforceable, they cannot be effective.

This means that if a law is enforceable, it’s effective. This reverses what we’re looking for. (B) doesn’t prove that if a law isn’t enforceable, it can’t be effective. In other words, (B) still allows for gambling laws to be effective, even though they’re not enforceable.

A premise already establishes that gambling prohibitions are not enforceable. (C) doesn’t establish that the gambling prohibitions are not EFFECTIVE. There’s a difference between “not enforceable” and “not effective.”

The premises don’t give us enough to establish that most citizens don’t agree with gambling laws; so (D) doesn’t establish that gambling laws aren’t effective. We know that most citizens recognize that they’re not enforceable, but this doesn’t imply that they don’t agree with the laws.

The premises already establish that gambling laws are not enforceable. (E) doesn’t establish that the laws are not EFFECTIVE. There’s a difference between “not enforceable” and “not effective.”

PrepTest 101 - Section 2 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action