PT41.S1.Q22 - routinely unpunished society's rules

extramedium

Can someone please explain how we arrive at answer choice D from the stimulus?

If I understand correctly, not routinely unpunished (/RU) equates to sometimes unpunished.

We get /RU by negating the chain presented in the stimulus which is /CH->MG->/RU

From there the author shifts from "routinely" (/RU) to "never" (/U).

So why does the correct answer say confuses "routinely" with "sometimes"? Since the conclusion says never unpunished, I figured it would be confuses "never" with "routine" or "sometimes."

JY's video explanation offers no insight here, but I'll post the link anyways.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-22/

GrecoRoman

It lays out routine non-punishment as a sufficient condition for chaos and then implies that sometimes allowing an instance of non-punishment will lead to chaos, since it concludes we should never allow any instances of non-punishment when rules are broken, rather than saying we should never routinely allow instances of non-punishment when rules are broken. So it's basically confusing the sufficient condition of routine for sometimes. Hope I am explaining this alright.

P.S. Is your name a Scrubs reference?

extramedium

Thanks for your help. I think it clicked but tell me if this sounds accurate. The logical opposite of routine (most) is sometimes. And the logical opposite of sometimes is never.

So the conclusion would be valid if they used sometimes instead of routine as the sufficient. Is that right?

Oh yeah. My name is part of a Zach Galifianakis joke from 15 years ago. Kind of an inside joke with old friends. He still uses it all the time.

riverLethe

I think I get it now.
Stimulus: Rules routinely unpunished => should never be allowed to go unpunished.

D) sometimes not punishing ≠ routinely not punishing