PT9.S2.Q16 - Some people take their moral cues

Bomhillz

lsat9.s2.question-16.misc

Hi, I'm working through the drills for Psets 1-9 and since there aren't videos I thinks it's a win-win for me to type up the solutions to the ones I get wrong. Would appreciate if fellow 7Sager's could ground or critique my logic.

Type: MBF
Conclusion: cannot have something legally permissible and immoral (note: they used 'inconceivable'... I'm taking a leap by making converting that to cannot. Is this ok ?)

Lawgic:
cannot group four, negate immoral and we get
Legally Permissible -> Moral
Morally wrong -> Legally impermissible

(A) Says the law does not cover all circumstances of moral wrongs. But from stimulus, if something is morally wrong then it is necessarily legally impermissible, which means that it is covered by the law. Correct MBF answer choice
(B) never group four, negate legally impermissible: Morally excusable -> legally permissible....this is saying that legally permissible acts are morally good, tricky language using the negations and word 'excusable' makes it a good trap answer choice. but definitely could be true
(C) Could be true. stimulus says nothing about gov officals
(D) Could be true. unrelated
(E) Could be true. Moral permisability has nothing to do with burdens on the economy

Admin note: edited title